In this criminal revision, the High Court examined a challenge to the dismissal of a rape complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The court found the order based on lack of medical evidence and conflicting reports, not perverse, and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 30
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3178 of 2014 Revisionist :- Fatma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shakil Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,R.U. Ansari
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 8.10.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Chandpur, District Bijnor in Complaint Case No.877 of 2014 (Fatma vs. Mumtaj and others) under Section 376g, 506 IPC, PS- Shivakalan, District Bijnor whereby the complaint of the revisionist was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
As per prosecution case, on 16.9.2014 at about 05.00 AM, the prosecutrix was sleeping in her residence. Accused Mumtaz, Salim and Shakir entered into her house and committed gang rape on her. On alarm being raised by her, Shamshad, Suleman and Hamid reached on the spot. After that the accused fled away from the spot. After enquiry, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the prosecutrix has supported the complaint version. Even then, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order without appreciating the evidence on record.
Learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that Smt. Sanjeeda, wife of opposite party No. 2 - Mumtaz has lodged non-cognizable report against Shamshad, husband of prosecutrix and two other persons belonging to her family, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC for the occurrence of same day i.e. 16.09.2014. There are several civil disputes going on between the parties. In the counterblast, with false allegation, the complainant has filed complaint. There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate.
Learned Magistrate has observed in his order that many other persons came on the spot, but they had not apprehended the accused. He further observed that there is no allegation of assault by the opposite party to the prosecutrix. However, the prosecutrix has submitted injury report which shows that she has sustained several injuries. Allegation of rape to the prosecutrix is not supported by medical evidence. Order passed by Magistrate is based on reasoning and is not perverse.
In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate.
Accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed .
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Deepika
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. was erroneously dismissed despite prosecution evidence.
Whether the impugned order of the Magistrate is perverse or arbitrary.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Fatma
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
