Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 385, 506 & 120B—Extortion, criminal intimidation and conspiracy—Parents of rape accused were proceeded under Section 319 of CrPC—Petition to quash order—Merely because complainant/prosecutrix has named the petitioners in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, as also in the trial court in her deposition, in the absence of their names being disclosed in the FIR, which was lodged on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the prosecutrix on the same day, which was already delayed by around two and half years, and in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and supplementary statement, the prosecutrix has also not named of the petitioners, it is difficult to assume that the petitioners were also involved in the present case—FIR is not an encyclopedia, however, considering the fact that there is a general tendency of a victim of crime to implicate all the family members of the main accused in order to settle the personal score, the court is also required to look into the matter from the perspective of a reasonable man, as to how he would have behaved or acted in the given circumstances, and thus, seen from the said perspective, it is difficult for the High Court to assume that when the crime is said to have committed during the period of around two and a half years, while lodging the written complaint, the proseutrix would miss the names of the petitioners who are none other than the parents of the main accused, and from whom no recovery has also been made—Impugned order quashed—Petition allowed.
[Paras 6, 11 to 13]