JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This application is filed by the applicant Hari Dayal with a prayer that Criminal Proceedings in Criminal Case No. 649 of 1999 pending in the court of learned additional 1st C.J.M. Jhansi arising out of the charge sheet submitted in case crime No. 15 of 1998 under Sections 376, 452, 504 and 576 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Xn) S.C./S.T, (PA) Act P.S. Uldan district Jhansi.
2. The facts in brief of this case are that in the present case an F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Pushpa Devi, O.P. No. 2 on 6.3.1998 at 9.05 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 5.3.1998 at about 9.00 p.m., the F.I.R. was against the applicant and Ganesh Prasad. The matter was investigated by the I.O. who submitted the charge sheet against the applicant under Sections 376, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(XII) S.C./S.T.(PA) Act before the court concerned on 26.6.1998. After lodging the F.I.R. the prosecutrix was medically examined on 7.3.1998 at 12.30 p.m. She disclosed her age 28 years. She had received abrasion on left forearm and a nail marks over the left forearm. On internal examination swelling around vaginal opening, tender on touching was found and according to the opinion of the doctor the injuries were caused due to penetration by hard and blunt object.
3. Heard Sri V.S. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and Sri visha Jeet Singh, learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that O.P. No. 2 has lodged a false F.I.R. against the applicant because she is habitual of fabricating false cases, the F.I.R. has been lodged for the offence defined under the provisions of S.C./S.T.(PA) Act just for taking financial assistance from the State Government. The prosecutrix is a married woman, her husband has lodged the F.I.R. against Santosh Kumar and Ashok under Sections 325, 342, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(XII) S.C./S.T. (PA) Act in which they were tried by the learned special Judge S.C./S.T. Act vide Special Sessions rial No. 162 of 1996, the husband of the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution story, he was declared hostile,, consequentially, accused Santosh Kumar and Ashok were acquitted on 19.2.1998. The O.P. No. 2 had lodged a false F.I.R. against one Raju for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(XII) S.C./S.T. (PA) Act P.S. Mau Ranipur district Jhansi. In this case also O.P. No. 2 changed the version after taking financial assistance of Rs. 25,000/- from the State Government. Therefore, charge sheet was submitted only under Sections 354, 452 I.P.C. and 3(1)(XII) S.C./S.T. (PA) Act. O.P. No. 2 had lodged the F.I.R. against the applicant also due to ulterior motive for getting financial assistance from the State Government.
5. The prosecutrix O.P, No. 2 is a married woman. She gave birth to five children out of which 2 children are still alive. During investigation many persons living in the village of O.P. No. 2 gave the affidavits to the I.O. mentioning therein that the applicant was falsely implicated by the O.P. No, 2 but without doing a fair investigation the I.O. has submitted a charge sheet against the applicant. In the present case also the State Government has directed the District Magistrate to give financial assistance to O.P. No. 2. The prosecution story is absolutely false, concocted and unbelievable and is highly improbable. The applicant is having a very good reputation, he is very respected person of the village, he is having 100 bighas of land in his family and for the purpose of harassment and extracting some money he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. It is further contended that the counter affidavit has been filed by O.P. No. 2 in which she has not supported the allegation made against the applicant. Therefore, the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant arising out of the charge sheet submitted in case crime No. 15 of 1998 under Sections 376, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(XII) S.C./S.T. (PA) Act P.S. Uldan district Jhansi pending in the court of learned 1st Additional C.J.M, Jhansi vide criminal Case No. 649 of 1998 may be quashed.
7. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by O.P. No, 2 in support of the applicant, the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant cannot be quashed.
8. The learned Counsel for O.P. No 2 submitted that he is having no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
9. From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case F.I.R. was lodged by O.P. No. 2 and after recording the statement of the witnesses charge sheet has been submitted by the I.O. against the applicant, on the basis of that charge sheet learned magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant to face the trial, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(XII) S.C./S.T. (PA) Act On the basis of material collected by the I.O. prima facie aforesaid offences are made out and there is sufficient material to proceed further. Only on the basis of affidavit filed by O.P. No. 2 who is a witness of the charge sheet, such criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. The present case is triable by the court of session and it is grave in nature, which shall be decided after adopting the proper procedure prescribed by the law. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet is refused.
10. However, considering the fact that Smt. Pushpa Devi the prosecutrix (O.P.No. 2) has denied all the allegations made against the applicant in her counter affidavit, it is directed that O.P. No. 2 and accused shall appear before the magistrate concerned within a month if the prosecutrix is properly identified her statement shall be recorded by the learned magistrate concerned who shall pass an appropriate order on the application for bail, if filed by the applicant and the case shall be committed to the court of sessions, the sessions court after adopting a proper procedure shall record the evidence, on day to day basis, without granting any unnecssary adjournments and shall decide the case expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of law.
11. With this direction this application is finally disposed of.