2019 (4) TMI 982 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Offence under Section 376 of the IPC - As per the prosecutrix, admittedly there is a prior complaint filed by the respondent against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque issued in favour of the respondent - HELD THAT - There are no specific details provided by the prosecutrix either in her statement given to the police or in the statement given under Section 164 Cr. P.C. - The finding returned by the trial court that the material placed before the Court does not disclose grave suspicion against the accused for framing of a charge against him for committing the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, does not appear to be perverse or misplaced. Perusal of the records as well as the statements show that the allegations are completely vague and bereft of any details, further the material placed on record does not give rise to grave suspicion against the respondent of having committing the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Revision impugning order discharging the respondent of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
- Allegations of forceful physical relationship, financial exploitation, and fraud against the respondent.
- Delay in lodging the complaint and counter-blast theory.
- Lack of medical evidence and specific details in the complaint.
- Evaluation of the trial court's decision to discharge the respondent.

Analysis:
1. The State filed a revision challenging the discharge of the respondent from the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. The FIR was registered based on the complaint by the prosecutrix, alleging a known acquaintance with the respondent who forcefully engaged in physical relations with her, financial exploitation, and fraudulently acquiring her property and money.

2. The trial court considered the respondent's defense of being falsely implicated and highlighted the substantial delay in lodging the complaint, which was seen as a possible counter-blast to the respondent's complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent claimed that the prosecutrix owed him money, leading to the dishonor of a cheque and subsequent legal action.

3. The trial court found no medical evidence to support the prosecutrix's claims and noted discrepancies in the timeline and details provided by her. The prosecutrix failed to provide specific allegations and the material collected did not raise grave suspicion against the respondent for the offence under Section 376 IPC.

4. The allegations in the FIR were deemed vague and lacked specific details, with the prosecutrix failing to explain the delay in reporting the incident. The court observed that the prosecutrix's statements did not offer substantial corroboration, and the trial court's decision to discharge the respondent was upheld as not being erroneous or unjust.

5. The judgment concluded that the material on record did not support framing charges against the respondent for the alleged offence, emphasizing the vagueness and lack of substantial evidence in the prosecutrix's claims. The petition challenging the discharge was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the reasoning behind the court's decision to discharge the respondent.