part of annexure 2 to the writ petition wherein the police has specifically mentioned that on account of prior land dispute, an altercation had taken place and mobile of the petitioner had fallen down, which was picked up by the informant side. There is no mention therein about any allegation of rape or attempt to rape. In the F.I.R., just to harass the petitioner, on account of prior enmity, a story has been cooked up by the informant of attempt to rape and molestation and at the stage of recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the story has been changed from attempt to rape to actual rape having been committed, which itself goes to show the malafide of the informant. Therefore, this Court should interfere in the matter, as it is a fit case for quashing of the F.I.R. and for granting interim protection. Learned counsel for the petitioner also says that the informant is a married lady and now-a-days it has become a trend to falsely implicate on account of prior enmity, including the allegations of rape and merely by making an statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. false implications are being done, which is of common knowledge. Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has also placed reliance upon a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haji Iqbal @ Bala, through S.P.O.A. Vs. State of U.P. & others [Criminal Appeal No.2343 of 2023 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.2988 of 2023)] and Mahmood Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No.2341 of 2023 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.12459 of 2022)]
