State v. Laxmi Shankar) arising out of Case Crime No

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This application has been filed seeking the following main relief. "That in view of the facts and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is just and expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this application Under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and to quash and stay the Charge- Sheet No.166 of 2022, dated 03.04.2022 submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant Under Sections 376, 313, 323, 506 & 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in relation to Case Crime No. 0103 of 2020, Police Station Inayat Nagar, District Ayodya as well as the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 107 of 2023 (State Vs. Laxmi Shankar) arising out of Case Crime No. 0103 of 2020, Under Sections 376, 313, 323, 506 & 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Inayat Nagar, District Ayodya pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Ayodhya."

3. At the outset, learned A.G.A., while placing a copy of the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by this Court in Application u/s 482 No. 8841 of 2022 (Laxmi Shankar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.), submits that the charge sheet challenged in this application, has already been challenged in aforesaid Application u/s 482 No. 8841 of 2022. The copy of the order dated 30.11.2022 is taken on record. Order dated 30.11.2022 reads as under. "Shri Satish Kumar Srivastava and Ms. Anita Tiwari, learned Advocates has 2 A482 No. 9796 of 2025 filed their 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of the opposite party no.2, the same is taken on record. Heard Shri Ambika Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Shri Satish Kumar Srivastava and Ms. Anita Tiwari, learned counsels appearing for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant namely Laxmi Shankar Mishra with the prayer to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 09.09.2022 as well as charge sheet no.02, dated 03.04.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, District Faizabad, in Criminal Case No. 213/2022 "State vs. Laxmi Shankar", arising out of Case Crime No. 103/2020, under Sections 376, 313, 323, 427 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Inayat Nagar, District Ayodhya and to stay the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the F.I.R. pertaining to the instant case was lodged by the opposite party no.2 with considerable delay and even after the contents of the F.I.R. are believed and the case of the prosecution as is emerging from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is taken on its face, the same may not attract relevant ingredients of the penal offences under which the trial court has summoned the applicant to face trial. It is further submitted that admittedly the opposite party no.2 was living with the applicant as his wife for a long time and, therefore, the sexual relations between them could not be termed as 'rape' as the cohabitation was with the wife. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the territorial jurisdiction is also lacking as the occurrence is shown to have occurred in District Varanasi, while the investigation has been done at Faizabad/Ayodhya. Thus, the charge sheet, summoning order as well as the cognizance taking order is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and the same be quashed. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that after thorough investigation charge sheet has been filed and there is no illegality either in investigation, submission of charge sheet and taking of cognizance by the trial Court. Learned counsels appearing for opposite party no.2 vehemently submits that the allegations of the F.I.R. has been supported by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., so far as the contradictions which according to learned counsel for the applicant is emerging in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the same could be taken care of at an appropriate stage during the course of trial but the same could not be sufficient enough to quash the proceedings in the instant case. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the allegations of making physical relationship in the guise of false promise of marriage has been levelled against the applicant. The allegations have been supported by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The contradictions which may be 3 A482 No. 9796 of 2025 emerging in the statement of the prosecution witnesses or in various statements of the prosecutrix could not be the basis of quashing the proceedings as the same may be appreciated at an appropriate stage by the trial court at the time of final culmination of the trial. The submission with regard to the lacking of territorial jurisdiction could also be entertained at an appropriate stage and in this regard a suitable application may be moved by the applicant/accused before the trial court. However, the prejudiceness would also be shown by the applicant as to how he has been aggrieved or prejudiced by the investigation which has been conducted at Faizabad, moreover, in the cases of continuous occurrence of cause of action the territorial jurisdiction is also a complex question of fact which could only be entertained during the course of trial. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the submissions which have been made by learned counsel for the applicant are not sufficient enough to quash the proceeding pending before the court below in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843, State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported MANU/SC/0139/2019, Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 and In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0292/2021. Thus, for the reasons and law mentioned herein-above, I do not find any merit in the application and the same is, hereby, dismissed."

4. It is evident from the record that the same charge sheet, i.e., Charge Sheet No. 02 dated 03.04.2022, as was challenged in Application u/s 482 No. 8841 of 2022, is annexed with the present application as Annexure No. 1 to the application, however, in the prayer clause, the detail of the charge sheet is mentioned as Charge Sheet No. 166 of 2022 dated 03.04.2022. Further, in para 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is mentioned that applicant has not filed any other Crl. Misc. Application or Criminal Revision etc. against the same cause of action, but in view of the order quoted above, it is apparent that Application u/s 482 No. 8841 of 2022 has already been filed challenging the same proceedings.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that she may be allowed to withdraw this application and also tenders her unconditional apology. 4 A482 No. 9796 of 2025

6. In view of above facts and circumstances, the application stands dismissed with the cost of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be deposited by the applicant before the Mediation & Conciliation Center of this Court within two weeks from today. In case, the applicant fails to deposit the cost amount within the aforesaid period, District Magistrate, Ayodhya shall recover the cost amount from the applicant as arrears of land revenue and transmit the same to the Mediation & Conciliation Center of this Court. December 9, 2025 VKS (Rajeev Singh,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This application has been filed seeking the following main relief. "That in view of the facts and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is just and expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this application Under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and to quash and stay the Charge- Sheet No.166 of 2022, dated 03.04.2022 submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant Under Sections 376, 313, 323, 506 & 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in relation to Case Crime No. 0103 of 2020, Police Station Inayat Nagar, District Ayodya as well as the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 107 of 2023 (State Vs. Laxmi Shankar) arising out of Case Crime No. 0103 of 2020, Under Sections 376, 313, 323, 506 & 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Inayat Nagar, District Ayodya pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Ayodhya."

3. At the outset, learned A.G.A., while placing a copy of the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by this Court in Application u/s 482 No. 8841 of 2022 (Laxmi Shankar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.), submits that the charge sheet challenged in this application, has already been challenged in aforesaid Application u/s 482 No. 8841 of 2022. The copy of the order dated 30.11.2022 is taken on record. Order dated 30.11.2022 reads as under. "Shri Satish Kumar Srivastava and Ms. Anita Tiwari, learned Advocates has 2 A482 No. 9796 of 2025 filed their 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of the opposite party no.2, the same is taken on record. Heard Shri Ambika Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Shri Satish Kumar Srivastava and Ms. Anita Tiwari, learned counsels appearing for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant namely Laxmi Shankar Mishra with the prayer to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 09.09.2022 as well as charge sheet no.02, dated 03.04.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, District Faizabad, in Criminal Case No. 213/2022 "State vs. Laxmi Shankar", arising out of Case Crime No. 103/2020, under Sections 376, 313, 323, 427 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Inayat Nagar, District Ayodhya and to stay the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the F.I.R. pertaining to the instant case was lodged by the opposite party no.2 with considerable delay and even after the contents of the F.I.R. are believed and the case of the prosecution as is emerging from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is taken on its face, the same may not attract relevant ingredients of the penal offences under which the trial court has summoned the applicant to face trial. It is further submitted that admittedly the opposite party no.2 was living with the applicant as his wife for a long time and, therefore, the sexual relations between them could not be termed as 'rape' as the cohabitation was with the wife. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the territorial jurisdiction is also lacking as the occurrence is shown to have occurred in District Varanasi, while the investigation has been done at Faizabad/Ayodhya. Thus, the charge sheet, summoning order as well as the cognizance taking order is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and the same be quashed. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that after thorough investigation charge sheet has been filed and there is no illegality either in investigation, submission of charge sheet and taking of cognizance by the trial Court. Learned counsels appearing for opposite party no.2 vehemently submits that the allegations of the F.I.R. has been supported by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., so far as the contradictions which according to learned counsel for the applicant is emerging in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the same could be taken care of at an appropriate stage during the course of trial but the same could not be sufficient enough to quash the proceedings in the instant case. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the allegations of making physical relationship in the guise of false promise of marriage has been levelled against the applicant. The allegations have been supported by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The contradictions which may be 3 A482 No. 9796 of 2025 emerging in the statement of the prosecution witnesses or in various statements of the prosecutrix could not be the basis of quashing the proceedings as the same may be appreciated at an appropriate stage by the trial court at the time of final culmination of the trial. The submission with regard to the lacking of territorial jurisdiction could also be entertained at an appropriate stage and in this regard a suitable application may be moved by the applicant/accused before the trial court. However, the prejudiceness would also be shown by the applicant as to how he has been aggrieved or prejudiced by the investigation which has been conducted at Faizabad, moreover, in the cases of continuous occurrence of cause of action the territorial jurisdiction is also a complex question of fact which could only be entertained during the course of trial. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the submissions which have been made by learned counsel for the applicant are not sufficient enough to quash the proceeding pending before the court below in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843, State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported MANU/SC/0139/2019, Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 and In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0292/2021. Thus, for the reasons and law mentioned herein-above, I do not find any merit in the application and the same is, hereby, dismissed."

4. It is evident from the record that the same charge sheet, i.e., Charge Sheet No. 02 dated 03.04.2022, as was challenged in Application u/s 482 No. 8841 of 2022, is annexed with the present application as Annexure No. 1 to the application, however, in the prayer clause, the detail of the charge sheet is mentioned as Charge Sheet No. 166 of 2022 dated 03.04.2022. Further, in para 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is mentioned that applicant has not filed any other Crl. Misc. Application or Criminal Revision etc. against the same cause of action, but in view of the order quoted above, it is apparent that Application u/s 482 No. 8841 of 2022 has already been filed challenging the same proceedings.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that she may be allowed to withdraw this application and also tenders her unconditional apology. 4 A482 No. 9796 of 2025

6. In view of above facts and circumstances, the application stands dismissed with the cost of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be deposited by the applicant before the Mediation & Conciliation Center of this Court within two weeks from today. In case, the applicant fails to deposit the cost amount within the aforesaid period, District Magistrate, Ayodhya shall recover the cost amount from the applicant as arrears of land revenue and transmit the same to the Mediation & Conciliation Center of this Court. December 9, 2025 VKS (Rajeev Singh,J.)