Criminal proceedings is a serious and indispensable component of justice, while the law may believe that one is innocent before proven guilty, it also believes that one must tried justly for the crime giving equal opportunities for both the parties to prove their side. This was held in the judgment passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE, in the matter Abdul Malik V. Union Territory of J&K and anr. (CRM(M) No. 130/2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings, arising out of Challan, titled, Union Territory of J&K vs. Abdul Malik.
The Petitioner had retired from the Army and the respondent and her husband had become greedy and started demanding money from the petitioner on the various pretexts but the petitioner refused to part with any of the amount of money, resulting in to hostility between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent and her husband on the other hand. It is further stated that pursuant to a conspiracy in order to pressurize the petitioner, the respondent and her husband approached the Police Station Rajouri and presented a concocted version of some incident having taken place two months prior to the said report.
The petitioner has challenged the criminal proceedings primarily on the ground that the respondent has not complied with the mandate of law laid down in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr vs State Of U.P.& others AIR SC, 2015 1758 case and straightway approached the Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and further the respondent had neither given any date of occurrence in the FIR nor in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.
The respondents stated that on 14.10.2020, thecomplainant lodged a written complaint at Women Police Station, Rajouri against the petitioner stating therein that her husband had gone to Saudi Arabia for labour purpose. In absence of her husband, the petitioner, who is her neighbour and a retired Army personnel, tried to develop illicit relation with her but she denied. The accused taking advantage of the absence of husband of respondent No. 2, threatened her with the dire consequences and committed rape forcibly with her many times.
The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent No. 2 had straightway approached the learned Magistrate by way of an application under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. without first approaching the SHO and District Superintendent of Police concerned. He further argued that there are major contradictions in the prosecution story.
After hearing both the parties, the Hon’ble Jammu High court dismissed the petition as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that mandate of law laid down in Priyanka Srivastava’s judgment (supra) has not been followed, cannot be considered now, as the concerned SHO after perusing the contents of the application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., has registered the FIR and even after investigation, the Investigating Officer has come to the conclusion that the offence has been committed by the petitioner. The mandate of law laid down in Priyanka Srivastava’s case will not come to the rescue of the petitioner at this stage.