Vijay Pal And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And

2. Heard Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Sashi Bhushan Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "For the facts and reason and Circumstances mentioned in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court to quash the Order dated 18/09/2025 passed by learned Session Judge F.T.C -1, Sultanpur in ST No 191/2025 U/S 363, 366 I.P.C, PS - Piparpur, Dist. Amethi, State VS Ram Vachan and Others, by which the discharge application has been rejected, which is annexed As Annexure No-1 to this Affidavit and also to quash the present Criminal proceedings in respect of present petitioners from the stage of the order dated 25/11/2010, (Annexure No 4) by which the final report dated 30/9/2009 passed in criminal case No. 184/2011 has been rejected by A.C.J.M. court NO -20 Dist. Sultanpur and case has been converted into complaint case. It is also prayed to this Hon'ble Court to discharge to petitioners namely Vijay pal and Sheetala prasad from criminal proceeding initiated by learned Session judge F.T.C-1st, Sultanpur in ST No 191/2025 U/S 363, 366 I.P.C, State VS Ram Vachan and Others. It is further prayed to this Hon'ble Court to stay the Criminal proceedings Of ST No 191/2025 U/S 363, 366 I.P.C. State vs Ram Vachan pending before learned Session Judge FTC-1 Sultanpur during pendency of the petition before this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice."

4. The brief facts of the case are as under :- 2 A482 No. 10247 of 2025 (i) An F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No.2 at Police Station- Peeparpur, District -Amethi, registered as Case Crime No.465 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. alleging that the accused Ram Bachchan with the help of applicants enticed away the minor daughter of the opposite party No.2, aged about 15 years, in the night of 10/11.02.2009. (ii) It is to be noted that the F.I.R. as Case Crime No.465 of 2009 was registered in compliance of the order passed by the competent court of jurisdiction on an application preferred by the opposite party No.2 in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 26.02.2009. (iii) The Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") started the investigation and during investigation recovered the victim/daughter of the opposite party No.2 on 30.09.2009 as appears from the record. As on this date i.e. 30.09.2009 the custody of the victim was handed over to the opposite party No.2 which is indicated from the document annexed at page No.26 of the paper book as also from the final report dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure No.3 annexed at page 23), as also from the typed copy of the statement of the victim, on record at page 28 of the paper book, according to which the victim on her own volition left her house on 10/11.02.2009 and reached Patiyala where his father was residing, however, she did not stay with her father. (iv) Based upon the statement, aforesaid, recorded by the I.O. in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. alone the I.O. filed charge sheet, though he was under obligation to produce the victim before the Magistrate concerned for recording her statement before the Magistrate in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. (v) The final report was opposed by means of the protest application. The Magistrate, thereafter allowed the protest application and set aside the final report and treated the protest application as complaint case vide order dated 25.11.2010. The order dated 25.11.2010 is extracted herein under :- "िदनांक- 25.11.10 पत्रावली आदेश हेतु पेश हई / प्राथीर् के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता को पूवर् की ितिथ पर सुना जा चुका है तथा पत्रावली का अवलोकन िकया । वािदनी फू ला देवी की ओर से धारा-156 (3) जा० फौ० तहत िवपक्षीगण के िवरुद्ध प्राथर्ना-पत्र प्रस्तुत िकया गया। िजस पर न्यायालय द्वारा सुनवाई करते हुए सम्बिन्धत थाने को प्रथम सूचना िरपोटर् पजीकृ त कर के िववेचना िकये जाने हेतु आदेश पािरत िकया गया। न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन में सम्बिन्धत थाने द्वारा प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में प्रथम सूचना िरपोटर् पंजीकृ त करके मामले की िववेचना करते हुए न्यायालय के समक्ष एफ०आर० प्रस्तुत िकया गया। िजसकी सूचना वािदनी को दी गयी। वािदनी द्वारा उक्त एफ०आर० के िवरूद्ध प्रोटेस्ट प्राथर्ना-पत्र इस आशय का प्रस्तुत िकया गया है िक सम्बिन्धत थाने की पुिलस द्वारा सही ढंग से िववेचना नहीं की गयी है बिल्क अिभयुक्तगण के प्रभाव में आकर अिन्तम िरपोटर् प्रेिषत कर दी गयी है। तथा यह कहा है िक िदनाक 10.2.09 को राित्र में रामबचन प्रािथनी की लड़की को बहला फु सलाकर भगा ले गया रामबचन के साथ 11.00 बजे रात में जाते हुए कु मारी अनीता को रामसजीवन ने देखा था। प्रािथनी अपनी लड़की को दो-तीन िदन तक तलाश िकया िकन्तु कही पता नहीं चला। िवपक्षीगण उसकी लड़की को भगा ले गये है अतः अिन्तम िरपोटर् को िनरस्त करके िवपक्षीगण को तलब करने की याचना की गयी है। मामले के तथ्य एवं पिरस्थितयों पर िवचार करते हुए प्रस्तुत मामले में न्यायालय द्वारा जाँच िकया जाना न्यायोिचत 3 A482 No. 10247 of 2025 होगा। मामला पिरवाद के रूप में दजर् िकये जाने योग्य हैं। आदेश पुिलस द्वाराप्रेिषत अिन्तम िरपोटर् िदनांक 30.9.09 िनरस्त की जाती है। मामला पिरवाद के रूप में दजर् हों पत्रावली वास्ते साक्ष्य धारा-200द०प्र०स० िदनांक-3.2.11 को पेश हों ।" (vi) After treating the protest application as complaint case, the Magistrate concerned issued summons to the applicants to face trial for the offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. (vii) The applicants being aggrieved by the process adopted by the Magistrate concerned, approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482/378/407 No.4785 of 2012 (Vijay Kumar Pal and another Vs. The State of U.P. and another) and on 21.12.2012 this Court protected the interest of the applicants. However, subsequently, this application was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2019. The order dated 15.05.2019 is extracted herein under :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 20, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.164 of 2011 (subsequent Criminal Case No.156 of 2011) 'Phoola Devi Vs. Ram Bachan' relating to Case Crime No.465 of 2009, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Piparpur, District Amethi and the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Sultanpur whereby Criminal Revision No.112 of 2012 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

3. After hearing the submissions and perusing the record, I find no ground to interfere with the ongoing proceedings. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

4. However, it is directed that in case the petitioners appear/surrender before the court below within 15 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

5. It is also directed that if the petitioners are admitted to bail and the case is committed to the Court concerned, they would have liberty to file an application for discharge before the trial Court concerned in conformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C., which shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within two months." (viii) After the order dated 15.05.2019, the applicants appeared before the Trial court concerned and were released on bail and thereafter they preferred an application seeking discharge in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C. (ix) The discharge application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 18.09.2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.09.2025 is extracted herein under :- "3. मैंने उभयपक्ष के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता के तकोर्ं सुना एवं पत्रावली का सम्यक अवलोकन िकया गया। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक वािदनी मुकदमा फू ला देवी द्वारा मुकदमा िवरुद्ध अिभयुक्तगण राम बचन वमार्, शीतला प्रसाद व िवजय पाल के िवरुद्ध अंतगर्त धारा-363,366 भा०दं०सं०, थाना पीपरपुर, सुलतानपुर में 4 A482 No. 10247 of 2025 पंजीकृ त कराया। िववेचक द्वारा उपरोक्त प्रकरण में अंितम िरपोटर् संख्य-73/2009 िदनांिकत-30.09.2009 संबिधत न्यायालय प्रेिषत िकया गया िजस पर बािदनी मुकदमा फू ला देवी द्वारा प्रोटेस्ट प्राथर्ना पत्र संबंिधत न्यायालय प्रेिषत िकया गया िजस पर न्यायालय द्वारा अपने आदेश िदनांक-25.11.2010 को प्रेिषत उक्त अितम िरपोटर् को िनरस्त कर िदया। तदोपरान्त संबंिधत न्यायालय द्वारा वािदनी मुकदमा द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रोटेस्ट प्राथर्ना पत्र को पिरवाद के रूप में पंजीकृ त कर अिभयुक्तगण राम बचन वमार्, शीतला प्रसाद तथा िवजय पाल को अंतगर्त धारा -363,366 दं०प्र०सं० के अंतगर्त िवचारण हेतु अपने आदेश िदनांक-22.02.2012 को तलब िकया। वािदनी मुकदमा फू ला देवी द्वारा अपने बयान अंतगर्त धारा 200 दं०प्र०सं० में कथन िकया है िक राम बचन वमार्, शीतला प्रसाद जो उसके गांव के तथा िवजय पाल जो उसके पड़ोसी गांव के रहने वाले हैं उसकी बेटी पीिडता उम्र लगभग 15 वषर् को अिभयुक्त राम बचन द्वारा बहला-फु सला कर राित्र लगभग 11 बजे भगा ले गया है िजसको उसके जेठ का लड़का राम सजीवन ने देखा था। उक्त साक्षी ने न्यायालय के समक्ष सशपथ ये भी बयान िदया है िक मुिल्जम िवजय पाल से पूछताछ िकया तो उसने बताया िक राम बचन और शीतला उसकी मोटर साइिकल मांग कर ले गये थे। वहीं साक्षी हेमराज द्वारा अपने बयान अंतगर्त धारा-202-द०प्र०सं० में साक्ष्य िदया है िक उसकी चचेरी बहन पीिड़ता उम्र लगभग 15 वषर् उसके पडोसी राम बचन वमार् के साथ जाते हुए उसके चचेरे भाई राम सजीवन ने देखा था। पूछताछ में पता चला िक मुिल्जम िवजय पाल की मोटर साइिकल से मुिल्जम राम बचन और मुिल्जम शीतला यादव पीिड़ता को बैठाकर कहीं ले गये हैं।

4. इस प्रकार उक्त सािक्षयों द्वारा अपने बयान अंतगर्त धारा-200 द०प्र०सं० एवं 202 दं०प्र०सं० में अिभयुक्तगण द्वारा कािरत घटना का समथर्न िकया है। यहा ये भी उल्लेखनीय है िक संबिधत न्यायालय के तलबी आदेश िदनांिकत 22.02.2012 के िवरुद्ध अिभयुक्तगण द्वारा फौजदारी िनगरानी संख्या 112/2012 दािखल िकया गया था िजस पर संबिधत न्यायालय द्वारा साक्ष्यों के पिरशीलन व मामले के समस्त तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयों पर सम्यक रूप से िवचार करते हुए प्रस्तुत िनगरानी अपने आदेश िदनांक-17.10.2012 को िनरस्त कर िदया गया ।

5. In Dilwar Balu Kurane versus State of Maharastra (2002) 2 SCC 135, the principle enunciated in Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal 1979 3 SCC 4 has been reiterated as held that the jurisdiction under section 227 of the Cr.P.C., "judge which under the present code, an experience court, cannot act merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total impact of the evidence and the documents produce before the court, the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. It is however, does not mean that the judge should make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he is conducting a trial. The court is not required to hold a mini-trial at the stage of discharge. र्क्त िविध व्यवस्था, सािक्षयों के बयान एवं समस्त अिभयोजन के प्रपत्रों के पिरशीलन के उपरान्त उक्त 6. अतः उपयु प्रकरण में अिभयुक्तगण के िवरूद्ध प्रथम दृष्टया मामला बनता है एवं अिभयुक्तगण के िवरूद्ध सुसगत धाराओं में आरोप िवरिचत िकये जाने का आधार पयार्प्त है। अिभयुक्तगण की तरफ से प्रेिषत प्राथर्ना पत्र 5 ख िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश अिभयुक्तगण की तरफ से प्रेिषत प्राथर्ना पत्र 5 ख िनरस्त िकया जाता है। तद्वसार आपित्त 9 ख िनस्तािरत की जाती है। पत्रावली वास्ते आरोप के िबन्दु पर सुनवाई/आरोप िवरचन हेतु िदनांक-30.09.2025 को प्रस्तुत हो। सम्बिन्धत अिभयोग के सभी अिभयुक्तगण को िनदेर्िशत िकया जाता है िक िनयत ितिथ पर न्यायालय के समक्ष व्यिक्तगत रूप से उपिस्थत होना सुिनिश्चत करें।"

5. In the aforesaid background of the case, the applicants have filed the present application seeking the relief(s) quoted above.

6. For the purposes of causing interference, Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted as under :- 5 A482 No. 10247 of 2025 (i) That the order passed by the Magistrate dated 25.10.2010 treating the protest application as complaint case is not a speaking order. (ii) The victim was not produced before the Magistrate in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and despite this the Magistrate treated the protest application as complaint case and issued the summons to the applicants to face the trial for the offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C.

7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayers sought by applicants.

8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

9. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that no interference is required in the matter. It is for the following reason (s) :- (i) The plea of non examination of the victim in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. was available when the applicants approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482/378/407 No.4785 of 2012 (Vijay Kumar Pal and another Vs. The State of U.P. and another) and this application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2019 and therefore this plea/ground, which was available to the applicants at that relevant point of time cannot be raised at the subsequent stage of proceedings, as observed in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1399. (ii) The discharge application, on record as Annexure No.8 to the present application, indicates that the same was preferred by the applicants Vijay Kumar Pal S/o Ram Bahor Pal and Sheetala Prasad S/o Gayadeen on the aforesaid plea/ground, which could not be considered in view of aforesaid.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the application. It is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. December 9, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.)

2. Heard Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Sashi Bhushan Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "For the facts and reason and Circumstances mentioned in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court to quash the Order dated 18/09/2025 passed by learned Session Judge F.T.C -1, Sultanpur in ST No 191/2025 U/S 363, 366 I.P.C, PS - Piparpur, Dist. Amethi, State VS Ram Vachan and Others, by which the discharge application has been rejected, which is annexed As Annexure No-1 to this Affidavit and also to quash the present Criminal proceedings in respect of present petitioners from the stage of the order dated 25/11/2010, (Annexure No 4) by which the final report dated 30/9/2009 passed in criminal case No. 184/2011 has been rejected by A.C.J.M. court NO -20 Dist. Sultanpur and case has been converted into complaint case. It is also prayed to this Hon'ble Court to discharge to petitioners namely Vijay pal and Sheetala prasad from criminal proceeding initiated by learned Session judge F.T.C-1st, Sultanpur in ST No 191/2025 U/S 363, 366 I.P.C, State VS Ram Vachan and Others. It is further prayed to this Hon'ble Court to stay the Criminal proceedings Of ST No 191/2025 U/S 363, 366 I.P.C. State vs Ram Vachan pending before learned Session Judge FTC-1 Sultanpur during pendency of the petition before this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice."

4. The brief facts of the case are as under :- 2 A482 No. 10247 of 2025 (i) An F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No.2 at Police Station- Peeparpur, District -Amethi, registered as Case Crime No.465 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. alleging that the accused Ram Bachchan with the help of applicants enticed away the minor daughter of the opposite party No.2, aged about 15 years, in the night of 10/11.02.2009. (ii) It is to be noted that the F.I.R. as Case Crime No.465 of 2009 was registered in compliance of the order passed by the competent court of jurisdiction on an application preferred by the opposite party No.2 in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 26.02.2009. (iii) The Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") started the investigation and during investigation recovered the victim/daughter of the opposite party No.2 on 30.09.2009 as appears from the record. As on this date i.e. 30.09.2009 the custody of the victim was handed over to the opposite party No.2 which is indicated from the document annexed at page No.26 of the paper book as also from the final report dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure No.3 annexed at page 23), as also from the typed copy of the statement of the victim, on record at page 28 of the paper book, according to which the victim on her own volition left her house on 10/11.02.2009 and reached Patiyala where his father was residing, however, she did not stay with her father. (iv) Based upon the statement, aforesaid, recorded by the I.O. in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. alone the I.O. filed charge sheet, though he was under obligation to produce the victim before the Magistrate concerned for recording her statement before the Magistrate in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. (v) The final report was opposed by means of the protest application. The Magistrate, thereafter allowed the protest application and set aside the final report and treated the protest application as complaint case vide order dated 25.11.2010. The order dated 25.11.2010 is extracted herein under :- "िदनांक- 25.11.10 पत्रावली आदेश हेतु पेश हई / प्राथीर् के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता को पूवर् की ितिथ पर सुना जा चुका है तथा पत्रावली का अवलोकन िकया । वािदनी फू ला देवी की ओर से धारा-156 (3) जा० फौ० तहत िवपक्षीगण के िवरुद्ध प्राथर्ना-पत्र प्रस्तुत िकया गया। िजस पर न्यायालय द्वारा सुनवाई करते हुए सम्बिन्धत थाने को प्रथम सूचना िरपोटर् पजीकृ त कर के िववेचना िकये जाने हेतु आदेश पािरत िकया गया। न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन में सम्बिन्धत थाने द्वारा प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में प्रथम सूचना िरपोटर् पंजीकृ त करके मामले की िववेचना करते हुए न्यायालय के समक्ष एफ०आर० प्रस्तुत िकया गया। िजसकी सूचना वािदनी को दी गयी। वािदनी द्वारा उक्त एफ०आर० के िवरूद्ध प्रोटेस्ट प्राथर्ना-पत्र इस आशय का प्रस्तुत िकया गया है िक सम्बिन्धत थाने की पुिलस द्वारा सही ढंग से िववेचना नहीं की गयी है बिल्क अिभयुक्तगण के प्रभाव में आकर अिन्तम िरपोटर् प्रेिषत कर दी गयी है। तथा यह कहा है िक िदनाक 10.2.09 को राित्र में रामबचन प्रािथनी की लड़की को बहला फु सलाकर भगा ले गया रामबचन के साथ 11.00 बजे रात में जाते हुए कु मारी अनीता को रामसजीवन ने देखा था। प्रािथनी अपनी लड़की को दो-तीन िदन तक तलाश िकया िकन्तु कही पता नहीं चला। िवपक्षीगण उसकी लड़की को भगा ले गये है अतः अिन्तम िरपोटर् को िनरस्त करके िवपक्षीगण को तलब करने की याचना की गयी है। मामले के तथ्य एवं पिरस्थितयों पर िवचार करते हुए प्रस्तुत मामले में न्यायालय द्वारा जाँच िकया जाना न्यायोिचत 3 A482 No. 10247 of 2025 होगा। मामला पिरवाद के रूप में दजर् िकये जाने योग्य हैं। आदेश पुिलस द्वाराप्रेिषत अिन्तम िरपोटर् िदनांक 30.9.09 िनरस्त की जाती है। मामला पिरवाद के रूप में दजर् हों पत्रावली वास्ते साक्ष्य धारा-200द०प्र०स० िदनांक-3.2.11 को पेश हों ।" (vi) After treating the protest application as complaint case, the Magistrate concerned issued summons to the applicants to face trial for the offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. (vii) The applicants being aggrieved by the process adopted by the Magistrate concerned, approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482/378/407 No.4785 of 2012 (Vijay Kumar Pal and another Vs. The State of U.P. and another) and on 21.12.2012 this Court protected the interest of the applicants. However, subsequently, this application was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2019. The order dated 15.05.2019 is extracted herein under :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 20, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.164 of 2011 (subsequent Criminal Case No.156 of 2011) 'Phoola Devi Vs. Ram Bachan' relating to Case Crime No.465 of 2009, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Piparpur, District Amethi and the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Sultanpur whereby Criminal Revision No.112 of 2012 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

3. After hearing the submissions and perusing the record, I find no ground to interfere with the ongoing proceedings. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

4. However, it is directed that in case the petitioners appear/surrender before the court below within 15 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

5. It is also directed that if the petitioners are admitted to bail and the case is committed to the Court concerned, they would have liberty to file an application for discharge before the trial Court concerned in conformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C., which shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within two months." (viii) After the order dated 15.05.2019, the applicants appeared before the Trial court concerned and were released on bail and thereafter they preferred an application seeking discharge in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C. (ix) The discharge application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 18.09.2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.09.2025 is extracted herein under :- "3. मैंने उभयपक्ष के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता के तकोर्ं सुना एवं पत्रावली का सम्यक अवलोकन िकया गया। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक वािदनी मुकदमा फू ला देवी द्वारा मुकदमा िवरुद्ध अिभयुक्तगण राम बचन वमार्, शीतला प्रसाद व िवजय पाल के िवरुद्ध अंतगर्त धारा-363,366 भा०दं०सं०, थाना पीपरपुर, सुलतानपुर में 4 A482 No. 10247 of 2025 पंजीकृ त कराया। िववेचक द्वारा उपरोक्त प्रकरण में अंितम िरपोटर् संख्य-73/2009 िदनांिकत-30.09.2009 संबिधत न्यायालय प्रेिषत िकया गया िजस पर बािदनी मुकदमा फू ला देवी द्वारा प्रोटेस्ट प्राथर्ना पत्र संबंिधत न्यायालय प्रेिषत िकया गया िजस पर न्यायालय द्वारा अपने आदेश िदनांक-25.11.2010 को प्रेिषत उक्त अितम िरपोटर् को िनरस्त कर िदया। तदोपरान्त संबंिधत न्यायालय द्वारा वािदनी मुकदमा द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रोटेस्ट प्राथर्ना पत्र को पिरवाद के रूप में पंजीकृ त कर अिभयुक्तगण राम बचन वमार्, शीतला प्रसाद तथा िवजय पाल को अंतगर्त धारा -363,366 दं०प्र०सं० के अंतगर्त िवचारण हेतु अपने आदेश िदनांक-22.02.2012 को तलब िकया। वािदनी मुकदमा फू ला देवी द्वारा अपने बयान अंतगर्त धारा 200 दं०प्र०सं० में कथन िकया है िक राम बचन वमार्, शीतला प्रसाद जो उसके गांव के तथा िवजय पाल जो उसके पड़ोसी गांव के रहने वाले हैं उसकी बेटी पीिडता उम्र लगभग 15 वषर् को अिभयुक्त राम बचन द्वारा बहला-फु सला कर राित्र लगभग 11 बजे भगा ले गया है िजसको उसके जेठ का लड़का राम सजीवन ने देखा था। उक्त साक्षी ने न्यायालय के समक्ष सशपथ ये भी बयान िदया है िक मुिल्जम िवजय पाल से पूछताछ िकया तो उसने बताया िक राम बचन और शीतला उसकी मोटर साइिकल मांग कर ले गये थे। वहीं साक्षी हेमराज द्वारा अपने बयान अंतगर्त धारा-202-द०प्र०सं० में साक्ष्य िदया है िक उसकी चचेरी बहन पीिड़ता उम्र लगभग 15 वषर् उसके पडोसी राम बचन वमार् के साथ जाते हुए उसके चचेरे भाई राम सजीवन ने देखा था। पूछताछ में पता चला िक मुिल्जम िवजय पाल की मोटर साइिकल से मुिल्जम राम बचन और मुिल्जम शीतला यादव पीिड़ता को बैठाकर कहीं ले गये हैं।

4. इस प्रकार उक्त सािक्षयों द्वारा अपने बयान अंतगर्त धारा-200 द०प्र०सं० एवं 202 दं०प्र०सं० में अिभयुक्तगण द्वारा कािरत घटना का समथर्न िकया है। यहा ये भी उल्लेखनीय है िक संबिधत न्यायालय के तलबी आदेश िदनांिकत 22.02.2012 के िवरुद्ध अिभयुक्तगण द्वारा फौजदारी िनगरानी संख्या 112/2012 दािखल िकया गया था िजस पर संबिधत न्यायालय द्वारा साक्ष्यों के पिरशीलन व मामले के समस्त तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयों पर सम्यक रूप से िवचार करते हुए प्रस्तुत िनगरानी अपने आदेश िदनांक-17.10.2012 को िनरस्त कर िदया गया ।

5. In Dilwar Balu Kurane versus State of Maharastra (2002) 2 SCC 135, the principle enunciated in Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal 1979 3 SCC 4 has been reiterated as held that the jurisdiction under section 227 of the Cr.P.C., "judge which under the present code, an experience court, cannot act merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total impact of the evidence and the documents produce before the court, the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. It is however, does not mean that the judge should make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he is conducting a trial. The court is not required to hold a mini-trial at the stage of discharge. र्क्त िविध व्यवस्था, सािक्षयों के बयान एवं समस्त अिभयोजन के प्रपत्रों के पिरशीलन के उपरान्त उक्त 6. अतः उपयु प्रकरण में अिभयुक्तगण के िवरूद्ध प्रथम दृष्टया मामला बनता है एवं अिभयुक्तगण के िवरूद्ध सुसगत धाराओं में आरोप िवरिचत िकये जाने का आधार पयार्प्त है। अिभयुक्तगण की तरफ से प्रेिषत प्राथर्ना पत्र 5 ख िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश अिभयुक्तगण की तरफ से प्रेिषत प्राथर्ना पत्र 5 ख िनरस्त िकया जाता है। तद्वसार आपित्त 9 ख िनस्तािरत की जाती है। पत्रावली वास्ते आरोप के िबन्दु पर सुनवाई/आरोप िवरचन हेतु िदनांक-30.09.2025 को प्रस्तुत हो। सम्बिन्धत अिभयोग के सभी अिभयुक्तगण को िनदेर्िशत िकया जाता है िक िनयत ितिथ पर न्यायालय के समक्ष व्यिक्तगत रूप से उपिस्थत होना सुिनिश्चत करें।"

5. In the aforesaid background of the case, the applicants have filed the present application seeking the relief(s) quoted above.

6. For the purposes of causing interference, Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted as under :- 5 A482 No. 10247 of 2025 (i) That the order passed by the Magistrate dated 25.10.2010 treating the protest application as complaint case is not a speaking order. (ii) The victim was not produced before the Magistrate in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and despite this the Magistrate treated the protest application as complaint case and issued the summons to the applicants to face the trial for the offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C.

7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayers sought by applicants.

8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

9. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that no interference is required in the matter. It is for the following reason (s) :- (i) The plea of non examination of the victim in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. was available when the applicants approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482/378/407 No.4785 of 2012 (Vijay Kumar Pal and another Vs. The State of U.P. and another) and this application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2019 and therefore this plea/ground, which was available to the applicants at that relevant point of time cannot be raised at the subsequent stage of proceedings, as observed in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1399. (ii) The discharge application, on record as Annexure No.8 to the present application, indicates that the same was preferred by the applicants Vijay Kumar Pal S/o Ram Bahor Pal and Sheetala Prasad S/o Gayadeen on the aforesaid plea/ground, which could not be considered in view of aforesaid.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the application. It is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. December 9, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.)