Faiyaj Ahmad v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application is filed with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 22.10.2022 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda in Special Session Trial No.165 of 2020 "State Vs. Saddam" arising out of Case Crime No.165/2020 under Sections 363, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Dhanepur, District - Gonda.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the complainant with the allegation that her minor daughter was enticed away by the applicant and three other accused persons for the purposes of selling. He further submits that victim was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, she categorically stated that co-accused Saddam, who was selling fruits had provided a mobile to her for conversation with a threat that in case, she failed to talk with him, then her brother will be killed and one day, he forced her to become a pillion rider and went to Gonda, stayed there in a room for 8 to 9 days, where he committed wrong with her, thereafter, when his family members insisted, then he dropped her in Babaganj Bazaar, then she came to her house in weeping condition. 2 A482 No. 9188 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim was medically examined on 20.6.2020 and in the pathological report, no dead or alive spermatozoa was found, thereafter, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she developed a new case and assigned a role to the applicant for harassing her and one month ago, from the date of incident, her cousin Alia came to her alongwith a mobile & slip, which was sent by one Shakir and in the slip, threat was written that talk to him, otherwise your brother will be eliminated, thereafter, she started making conversation due to fear and never reported about the phone to her family members. All the three persons were talking to her and said that they loved her. On the date of incident, they serially made repeated calls to her and called her out, then she pretended to go to ease her, then all the three accused persons were there and one of them closed her mouth and she fainted, when she regain her sense, she was in a room, where the applicant and other accused were present, thereafter, they committed rape serially and whenever, they were going out, she was kept inside the lock and after coming back in the night they repeated the same event.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that several independent witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer, namely, Idrish Bhalle, Puddan, Shaynaazi, Jumman & Shakeel and categorically stated that marriage of sister-in-law of the uncle of the victim, namely, Kharati was solemnized with Babbu @ Sabir Khan, thereafter, marriage could not be succeeded and they took divorce and Rs.4,00,000/- was given by Babbu but after sometime, Khairati demanded more money and when his demand was denied, then threat was given to implicate in a false case. They also stated that victim was in love with Saddam and she left her house on her own with Saddam, thereafter, only with the intention to victimize all the family members, applicant has also been implicated being relative of Saddam as some quarrel was taken place in between Saddam and Sabir Khan on 12.6.2020, for which, they were challaned under Section 151 Cr.P.C. After that marriage of the victim was settled with Saddam Hussain but on the insistence of Khairati, mother of the victim refuse to solemnize marriage and on the initiation of Khairati, 3 A482 No. 9188 of 2025 case in question was also lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that name of the applicant was dropped by the Investigating Officer, charge sheet was submitted against Saddam Hussain and trial was proceeded, thereafter, statement of the complainant as well as victim was recorded and they again reiterated the version which was narrated in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also submits that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved, as a result, applicant was summoned without examining the Investigating Officer, who dropped the name of the applicant after satisfaction on the basis of evidences. He also relies on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018 CRI L. J. 98 and requested for indulgence of this Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant but he does not dispute the fact that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she categorically stated that three persons serially committed rape with her for eight days but in the pathology report, no dead or alive spermatozoa was found.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that victim has developed a new case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but the same was contrary to the medico legal report and Investigating Officer was satisfied on the basis of evidences collected during the course of investigation, thereafter, name of the applicant was dropped, in such circumstances, examination of the Investigating Officer as well as Doctor, who conducted the medico legal examination of the victim is necessary.

7. Matter requires consideration.

8. Issue notice to the private respondent.

9. List this case in the week commencing 15.12.2025.

10. Till the next date of listing, impugned proceedings in relation to 4 A482 No. 9188 of 2025 the applicant shall remain stayed.

11. However, it is open to the trial court to conclude the trial against the charge-sheeted accused persons, expeditiously. November 4, 2025 GauraV/- (Rajeev Singh,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application is filed with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 22.10.2022 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda in Special Session Trial No.165 of 2020 "State Vs. Saddam" arising out of Case Crime No.165/2020 under Sections 363, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Dhanepur, District - Gonda.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the complainant with the allegation that her minor daughter was enticed away by the applicant and three other accused persons for the purposes of selling. He further submits that victim was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, she categorically stated that co-accused Saddam, who was selling fruits had provided a mobile to her for conversation with a threat that in case, she failed to talk with him, then her brother will be killed and one day, he forced her to become a pillion rider and went to Gonda, stayed there in a room for 8 to 9 days, where he committed wrong with her, thereafter, when his family members insisted, then he dropped her in Babaganj Bazaar, then she came to her house in weeping condition. 2 A482 No. 9188 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim was medically examined on 20.6.2020 and in the pathological report, no dead or alive spermatozoa was found, thereafter, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she developed a new case and assigned a role to the applicant for harassing her and one month ago, from the date of incident, her cousin Alia came to her alongwith a mobile & slip, which was sent by one Shakir and in the slip, threat was written that talk to him, otherwise your brother will be eliminated, thereafter, she started making conversation due to fear and never reported about the phone to her family members. All the three persons were talking to her and said that they loved her. On the date of incident, they serially made repeated calls to her and called her out, then she pretended to go to ease her, then all the three accused persons were there and one of them closed her mouth and she fainted, when she regain her sense, she was in a room, where the applicant and other accused were present, thereafter, they committed rape serially and whenever, they were going out, she was kept inside the lock and after coming back in the night they repeated the same event.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that several independent witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer, namely, Idrish Bhalle, Puddan, Shaynaazi, Jumman & Shakeel and categorically stated that marriage of sister-in-law of the uncle of the victim, namely, Kharati was solemnized with Babbu @ Sabir Khan, thereafter, marriage could not be succeeded and they took divorce and Rs.4,00,000/- was given by Babbu but after sometime, Khairati demanded more money and when his demand was denied, then threat was given to implicate in a false case. They also stated that victim was in love with Saddam and she left her house on her own with Saddam, thereafter, only with the intention to victimize all the family members, applicant has also been implicated being relative of Saddam as some quarrel was taken place in between Saddam and Sabir Khan on 12.6.2020, for which, they were challaned under Section 151 Cr.P.C. After that marriage of the victim was settled with Saddam Hussain but on the insistence of Khairati, mother of the victim refuse to solemnize marriage and on the initiation of Khairati, 3 A482 No. 9188 of 2025 case in question was also lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that name of the applicant was dropped by the Investigating Officer, charge sheet was submitted against Saddam Hussain and trial was proceeded, thereafter, statement of the complainant as well as victim was recorded and they again reiterated the version which was narrated in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also submits that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved, as a result, applicant was summoned without examining the Investigating Officer, who dropped the name of the applicant after satisfaction on the basis of evidences. He also relies on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018 CRI L. J. 98 and requested for indulgence of this Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant but he does not dispute the fact that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she categorically stated that three persons serially committed rape with her for eight days but in the pathology report, no dead or alive spermatozoa was found.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that victim has developed a new case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but the same was contrary to the medico legal report and Investigating Officer was satisfied on the basis of evidences collected during the course of investigation, thereafter, name of the applicant was dropped, in such circumstances, examination of the Investigating Officer as well as Doctor, who conducted the medico legal examination of the victim is necessary.

7. Matter requires consideration.

8. Issue notice to the private respondent.

9. List this case in the week commencing 15.12.2025.

10. Till the next date of listing, impugned proceedings in relation to 4 A482 No. 9188 of 2025 the applicant shall remain stayed.

11. However, it is open to the trial court to conclude the trial against the charge-sheeted accused persons, expeditiously. November 4, 2025 GauraV/- (Rajeev Singh,J.)