A.G.A. and perused the record v. It is submitted by

1. Heard Sri C.P. Pandey (A/C 0153/12) along with Sri Anurag Pandey, holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This Court entertained the present application on 20.03.2025 wherein notices were issued to the opposite parties no. 2 and 3. There is an office report dated 17.05.2025 that opposite party no. 2 has expired on 11.11.2024. Looking into the nature of allegations so sought to be levelled coupled with the request made by the learned counsel for the parties for expeditious disposal of the present proceedings, the application has been taken up.

3. Learned State Law Officer for the State has made a statement at bar that he does not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

4. The case of the applicants is that proceedings under 156 Cr.P.C. came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 13.07.2022 against the applicants with an allegation that opposite party no. 2 is the resident of village Jataua, P.S. Fareedpur, District Bareilly and the victim is 17 years old girl who is the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 who on 31.05.2022 at 1:00 P.M. had gone to the general merchandise shop of one Surendra to bring some food articles and near the house of one Naresh son of Himanchal, the applicants herein who are three in number came in the way of the victim and stopped her movement and the applicant no. 1 caught hold of the victim and applicants no. 2 and 3 proceeded to exhibit indecent behaviour and molested and the applicant nos 2 and 3 started clicking photo and when the victim resisted then the applicant no. 1 assaulted and also had put hand on the breast of the victim and the victim in order to rescue herself ran but the applicants herein chase her and on raising hue and cry by the victim, the opposite party no. 2 Mahesh son of Babu Ram, Ramveer son of Chandra Pal came for her rescue and then the applicants herein hurled abuses and further threatened that, in case, FIR is being lodged then the photo would be made viral. It is alleged that on 31.05.2022 the opposite party no. 2 approached the police station for lodging of the first information report but the police official did not attend. On 07.07.2022, a complaint was lodged to the SSP, Bareilly and Inspector General, Bareilly Zone Bareilly followed by Application u/s 156(3) on 13.07.2022. The Application u/s 156(3) came to be rejected on 29.08.2022 by the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly against which the opposite party no. 2 preferred application u/s 482 no. 42798 of 2022 in which on 28.04.2023 the following orders were passed - "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhanu Dutt Pandey, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. By moving the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer is made to quash order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Misc. Application No.95 (6710/2022)/2022, C.N.R. No. U.P.B.R.01-007737-2022 (Bablu Versus Surjeet @ Billa and others), Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly, whereby the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the applicant was rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that regarding father's name of opposite party no.3 Chandrasen, the applicant/ complainant had filed an affidavit on 20.07.2022 in the trial court, whereby he added the age of the accused persons and father's name of Chandrasen as Satyapal @ Sukhpal, which was not considered by the trial court. It is further submitted that at least the trial court could have ordered to register the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. The impugned order without any finding regarding merits of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is erroneous and, hence, is liable to be quashed. Learned A.G.A., however, opposed the prayer. From the perusal of the record, it is found that application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant in the trial court on 13.07.2022 with the allegation that when his minor sister was going to the grocery shop at 1:00 p.m. on 31.05.2022, then near the house of Naresh all the accused persons caught hold of his sister and molested her. Darshan and Chandrasen clicked her photographs. When she opposed Surjeet @ Billa thrashed his sister, rubbed his hands on her breast and when she ran to save herself, she was chased and all the accused persons entered his house. The applicant and the villagers came and save the sister of the applicant. All the accused persons went away abusing and giving threat of making viral the videos, if the report was lodged against them. The report of the applicant was not lodged in the police station, hence, the prayer was made to lodge an FIR. This application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was disposed of vide impugned order dated 29.08.2022. The trial court opined that in the voter list filed by the applicant the father's name of Chandrasen is mentioned as Sukhpal, while it is mentioned in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as Satyapal, which shows that both these are the two different persons and just by mentioning this ground only the trial court rejection the application of the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. This order of the trial court is clearly a cryptic order on the face of the record, wherein no merits of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. have been discussed. The trial court has not applied its judicial mind, nor recorded its satisfaction while passing the order. The trial court must have noted its satisfaction to reach at a conclusion against all the three accused persons not only against only one accused person. In the opinion of the Court, the impugned order dated 29.08.2022 being a cryptic order is liable to be quashed. Hence, the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly is quashed. The court concerned is directed to pass a detailed order discussing the merits of the application and recording the court's satisfaction. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, hereby, allowed."

5. Thereafter, the case stood transformed into a complaint case on 06.02.2024 and post recording of the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the victim, under Section 202 followed by statement of Ram Veer under Section 202 and Mahesh Singh 202, the applicants came to be summoned on 02.08.2024 under Sections 354, 354Ga, 354Gha, 452, 506 read with Section 9/10 of the POCSO Act.

6. Questioning the summoning order, the applicants have filed the present application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that no such incident occurred which is alleged to have been committed in the proceedings under Section 156(3) which transformed into a complaint case. Submission is that had the victim been subjected to the said offences then obviously the same could have surfaced only when she put to medical examination. Further submission is that the victim was not put to medical examination, thus, the truth could not be surfaced. Further submission is that even post lodging of the proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 18.07.2022 pursuant to the order passed by the court below, a report came to be submitted according to which the police opined that there was a dispute with respect to the quota allotment of essential commodity and no such incident occurred. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire allegations are tailor-made just in order to falsely implicate the applicants as no such incident occurred. It is further contended that the court below in a routine manner without recording any satisfaction has summoned the applicant and no offences is made out. Learned counsel for the applicants, as per instructions, submits that applicants have been preferring discharge application and application for enlargement on bail.

8. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that from the narration of the allegations contained under Section 200 and 202 vis-a-vis the allegations in the complaint, offences are made out and mere non-subjection of the victim to medical examination would not be fatal. He further submits that reliance and reference so placed upon the police report is preposterous besides out of context particularly when the said police report is dated 18.07.2022 whereas the order of the application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 482 is of the year 2023 which became the basis for summoning order. He, however, submits that it is always open for the applicants to submit discharge application and application for enlargement on bail.

9. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

10. Looking into the fact and nature of allegations as also the stand taken by the applicants, the application stands disposed of granting liberty to the applicants to file discharge application before the court below by 31.07.2025 and on the filing of the discharge application, the court below shall decide the same with most expedition. It is always open for the applicants to also prefer n application seeking bail before the court below.

11. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Complaint Case No. 34 of 2024 (Babblu Versus Surjeet alias Billa and others) under Section 354, 354A, 354D, 452, 506 of I.P.C. and section 9/10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Fareedpur, District Bareilly, pending in the learned Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly.

12. Protection so accorded today, shall only be available to the applicants in those contingencies wherein, applicants stick to the timeline and does not commit any default to the order passed by this Court. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Rajesh

1. Heard Sri C.P. Pandey (A/C 0153/12) along with Sri Anurag Pandey, holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This Court entertained the present application on 20.03.2025 wherein notices were issued to the opposite parties no. 2 and 3. There is an office report dated 17.05.2025 that opposite party no. 2 has expired on 11.11.2024. Looking into the nature of allegations so sought to be levelled coupled with the request made by the learned counsel for the parties for expeditious disposal of the present proceedings, the application has been taken up.

3. Learned State Law Officer for the State has made a statement at bar that he does not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

4. The case of the applicants is that proceedings under 156 Cr.P.C. came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 13.07.2022 against the applicants with an allegation that opposite party no. 2 is the resident of village Jataua, P.S. Fareedpur, District Bareilly and the victim is 17 years old girl who is the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 who on 31.05.2022 at 1:00 P.M. had gone to the general merchandise shop of one Surendra to bring some food articles and near the house of one Naresh son of Himanchal, the applicants herein who are three in number came in the way of the victim and stopped her movement and the applicant no. 1 caught hold of the victim and applicants no. 2 and 3 proceeded to exhibit indecent behaviour and molested and the applicant nos 2 and 3 started clicking photo and when the victim resisted then the applicant no. 1 assaulted and also had put hand on the breast of the victim and the victim in order to rescue herself ran but the applicants herein chase her and on raising hue and cry by the victim, the opposite party no. 2 Mahesh son of Babu Ram, Ramveer son of Chandra Pal came for her rescue and then the applicants herein hurled abuses and further threatened that, in case, FIR is being lodged then the photo would be made viral. It is alleged that on 31.05.2022 the opposite party no. 2 approached the police station for lodging of the first information report but the police official did not attend. On 07.07.2022, a complaint was lodged to the SSP, Bareilly and Inspector General, Bareilly Zone Bareilly followed by Application u/s 156(3) on 13.07.2022. The Application u/s 156(3) came to be rejected on 29.08.2022 by the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly against which the opposite party no. 2 preferred application u/s 482 no. 42798 of 2022 in which on 28.04.2023 the following orders were passed - "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhanu Dutt Pandey, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. By moving the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer is made to quash order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Misc. Application No.95 (6710/2022)/2022, C.N.R. No. U.P.B.R.01-007737-2022 (Bablu Versus Surjeet @ Billa and others), Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly, whereby the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the applicant was rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that regarding father's name of opposite party no.3 Chandrasen, the applicant/ complainant had filed an affidavit on 20.07.2022 in the trial court, whereby he added the age of the accused persons and father's name of Chandrasen as Satyapal @ Sukhpal, which was not considered by the trial court. It is further submitted that at least the trial court could have ordered to register the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. The impugned order without any finding regarding merits of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is erroneous and, hence, is liable to be quashed. Learned A.G.A., however, opposed the prayer. From the perusal of the record, it is found that application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant in the trial court on 13.07.2022 with the allegation that when his minor sister was going to the grocery shop at 1:00 p.m. on 31.05.2022, then near the house of Naresh all the accused persons caught hold of his sister and molested her. Darshan and Chandrasen clicked her photographs. When she opposed Surjeet @ Billa thrashed his sister, rubbed his hands on her breast and when she ran to save herself, she was chased and all the accused persons entered his house. The applicant and the villagers came and save the sister of the applicant. All the accused persons went away abusing and giving threat of making viral the videos, if the report was lodged against them. The report of the applicant was not lodged in the police station, hence, the prayer was made to lodge an FIR. This application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was disposed of vide impugned order dated 29.08.2022. The trial court opined that in the voter list filed by the applicant the father's name of Chandrasen is mentioned as Sukhpal, while it is mentioned in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as Satyapal, which shows that both these are the two different persons and just by mentioning this ground only the trial court rejection the application of the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. This order of the trial court is clearly a cryptic order on the face of the record, wherein no merits of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. have been discussed. The trial court has not applied its judicial mind, nor recorded its satisfaction while passing the order. The trial court must have noted its satisfaction to reach at a conclusion against all the three accused persons not only against only one accused person. In the opinion of the Court, the impugned order dated 29.08.2022 being a cryptic order is liable to be quashed. Hence, the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly is quashed. The court concerned is directed to pass a detailed order discussing the merits of the application and recording the court's satisfaction. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, hereby, allowed."

5. Thereafter, the case stood transformed into a complaint case on 06.02.2024 and post recording of the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the victim, under Section 202 followed by statement of Ram Veer under Section 202 and Mahesh Singh 202, the applicants came to be summoned on 02.08.2024 under Sections 354, 354Ga, 354Gha, 452, 506 read with Section 9/10 of the POCSO Act.

6. Questioning the summoning order, the applicants have filed the present application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that no such incident occurred which is alleged to have been committed in the proceedings under Section 156(3) which transformed into a complaint case. Submission is that had the victim been subjected to the said offences then obviously the same could have surfaced only when she put to medical examination. Further submission is that the victim was not put to medical examination, thus, the truth could not be surfaced. Further submission is that even post lodging of the proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 18.07.2022 pursuant to the order passed by the court below, a report came to be submitted according to which the police opined that there was a dispute with respect to the quota allotment of essential commodity and no such incident occurred. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire allegations are tailor-made just in order to falsely implicate the applicants as no such incident occurred. It is further contended that the court below in a routine manner without recording any satisfaction has summoned the applicant and no offences is made out. Learned counsel for the applicants, as per instructions, submits that applicants have been preferring discharge application and application for enlargement on bail.

8. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that from the narration of the allegations contained under Section 200 and 202 vis-a-vis the allegations in the complaint, offences are made out and mere non-subjection of the victim to medical examination would not be fatal. He further submits that reliance and reference so placed upon the police report is preposterous besides out of context particularly when the said police report is dated 18.07.2022 whereas the order of the application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 482 is of the year 2023 which became the basis for summoning order. He, however, submits that it is always open for the applicants to submit discharge application and application for enlargement on bail.

9. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

10. Looking into the fact and nature of allegations as also the stand taken by the applicants, the application stands disposed of granting liberty to the applicants to file discharge application before the court below by 31.07.2025 and on the filing of the discharge application, the court below shall decide the same with most expedition. It is always open for the applicants to also prefer n application seeking bail before the court below.

11. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Complaint Case No. 34 of 2024 (Babblu Versus Surjeet alias Billa and others) under Section 354, 354A, 354D, 452, 506 of I.P.C. and section 9/10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Fareedpur, District Bareilly, pending in the learned Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly.

12. Protection so accorded today, shall only be available to the applicants in those contingencies wherein, applicants stick to the timeline and does not commit any default to the order passed by this Court. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Rajesh