High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:154569 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24435 of 2024 Applicant :- Wakeel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 09.06.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 24.07.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of S.C. No. 663 of 2020 connection with Case Crime No.227 of 2020, under Sections 354, 506 I.P.C., and Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act-2012 and Section 3(1)(b) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Pakbara, District- Moradabad, pending in the Court of Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No. 1, Moradabad and to stay the further proceedings in the aforesaid case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. has been lodged by Smt. Kripa (opposite party no.2) against applicant Wakeel on 28.04.2020 at 23:24 Hrs under Section 354, 506 I.P.C., Section 7, 8 of S.C./S.T. Act and 3(1)(b) of POCSO Act with the allegation that on 28.04.2020 her 8 and 10 year old daughters namely Vandana and Varsha respectively and her sister-in-law's 8 year old daughter namely Alka at about 2:30 had gone to bring grass for the buffaloes from the field of Monu, when, applicant Wakeel reached there on motorcycle. He, took the minor girls on his motorcycle near the tubewell and molested them by touching their private parts. Alka ran away from there. The applicant threatened the girls for dire consequences in case they disclose about the incident with anyone. The incident was narrated by one of the girls to her mother, therefore, the present F.I.R. has been lodged. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations with the ulterior motives. He submits that no such incident has taken place. He further submits that there are variations in the version of F.I.R. as well as statement of the minor girls. Placing reliance upon statement of Varsha recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he submits that she has denied any such incident and the medical also does not support the aforesaid incident. Counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into a compromise. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge- sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that there is no illegality, infirmity in the proceedings as evident from the version of the F.I.R. as well as statements of minor girls, offence under the relevant sections is made out. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the minor girls who have narrated the incident before the Doctor during course of medical examination. Learned A.G.A. submits that in such a heinous offence related to minor girls, no interference is required in view of the settled position of law. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. 7. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty (ix) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. 9. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 09.06.2020 and summoning order dated 24.07.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. 10. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 21.9.2024/Sumit K.