Gujarat HC Orally Questions State For Conducting 'Preliminary Inquiry' In Plea For Lodging Rape FIR Against BJP MLA, Lists Matter On Monday

While hearing a 2021 plea moved by a woman seeking registration of an FIR against BJP MLA from Prantij–Gajendrasinh Parmar, the Gujarat High Court on Wednesday (October 9) orally questioned the State for conducting a preliminary inquiry in a case pertaining to allegations of rape. After hearing the matter for some time a single judge bench of Justice Niral R Mehta adjourned it for further hearing on October 14. At the outset of the hearing the high court orally asked the counsel for the State as to why he was appearing in the matter. The court orally asked, “Who appears here? You appear (to the state's counsel). What is so significant about it? Your presence suggests that there has to be something".To this the state's counsel submitted, “No, it may be not like that, but since twice, thrice police officers have done scrutiny, statements are recorded, again she turned… from her own affidavits, her own statements and makes allegation.”To the court's query the counsel submitted that the petitioner wants registration of the FIR against the MLA. The high court thereafter orally queried as to why was the police not registering an FIR. To this the counsel submitted, "She first time approached the police after 8 months (from the alleged incident). When we called for recording of her statements pursuant to her applications, she refused to come stating that 'we are trying to settle'. Ultimately files an affidavit. I am on the aspect that when she herself comes to the police station gives an affidavit stating that the allegations made in my application are under misconception and nothing is required to be done in this application". On the court's query the counsel said that the woman's allegation was more or less that Parmar had "induced and committed offence of rape", adding that both parties are major.At this the high court orally asked, "Then, the rape cannot be done?" To this the counsel submitted that he was submitting on the aspect that the woman had herself gone to the concerned police station and given a statement and affidavit stating that the allegations made in her application are under a "misconception and nothing is required to be done in this application". The high court thereafter orally remarked, "There is a statement before the police, ultimately. Now, she is making allegation on oath by way of this petition”. The court thereafter perused through the plea and documents and orally said, "I was wondering why are you here for such petition. Many matters like this are here, you are never seen. My wondering was not that abnormal. The proposed accused, the allegation is against the MLA. That is why you are here”. The state's counsel however submitted that he was before the court as the police had performed its duties multiple times, however the woman was wavering one way or the other. He submitted that she had moved the first application eight months after the alleged incident and had subsequently filed an affidavit stating that the matter had been settled; thereafter she had again moved an application. Pointing to the facts the counsel said, "This application is of 17.02.2021 and it was received by the police station by police for the first time on 03.04.2020 and the solitary incident which is mentioned in the application is of 30.07.2020. So, prior to 8 months. And a particular quarter no. 50. We had inquired there is no such quarter no.50...everything is on record, I have placed everything on record. It is not that we have not inquired. Despite that she said, that 'we have settled, affidavit filed'. We have closed. Again she files an application, therefore, we started preliminary inquiry. We preliminary made an inquiry and concluded that no offence is made". At this stage, the high court orally asked the State's counsel,“Why in 376 (Section) you made a preliminary inquiry? Let us see Lalita Kumari (Govt.Of U.P.& Ors), preliminary inquiry is permitted in which cases? In Civil dispute. This is pertaining 376, why preliminary inquiry?”Answering to the query of the Court the counsel submitted that as per Lalita Kumari preliminary inquiry is permitted in "matrimonial dispute cases, land dispute, civil dispute". He thereafter said that after the alleged incident as per the woman's own case, the first time she approached the police was after 8 months. "We called her four times that 'you come and give us a statement so that we can convert it into FIR'. She had never come," he submitted. The court however asked as to why was she being called for a statement when she had already given a written plea. The counsel responded that it was an application given by the woman. To this court asked, "So, can that not be taken cognizance to?...Why are you calling her? That is done, that is done, page 21 is the application, that is FIR"The counsel pointed to the woman's application and said, "In a format of FIR, we require signature of the (victim) in the form 156 and thereafter, present before the Magistrate in 24 hours". The ...

Gujarat HC Orally Questions State For Conducting 'Preliminary Inquiry' In Plea For Lodging Rape FIR Against BJP MLA, Lists Matter On Monday

Lovina B Thakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Lovina B Thakkar

Gujarat HC Orally Questions State For Conducting 'Preliminary Inquiry' In Plea For Lodging Rape FIR Against BJP MLA, Lists Matter On Monday

Lovina B Thakkar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Lovina B Thakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers