State v. Satish Kumar, arising out of case crime No

State Vs. Satish Kumar, arising out of case crime No. 263 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Ramgarh Tal, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, F.T.C. Ist, Gorakhpur and impugned charge dated 10.7.2024 framed against the applicant by Additional District 6 Sessions Judge / F.T.C. (Crime Against Women) Gorakhpur under sections 376 (2) (n), 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. in the aforesaid Session Trial may also be quashed. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Session Trial no. 210 of 2024, State Vs. Satish Kumar, arising out of case crime No. 263 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Ramgarh Tal, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, F.T.C. Ist, Gorakhpur, during the pendency of the present case before this Hon'ble Court. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. representing State- opposite party-1 has raised a preliminary objection by contending that since the charges have already been framed against applicant by court below vide Framing of Charge Order dated 10.07.2024 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C., therefore, present application is not maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed by this Court.

5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant has referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in Sh. Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 13 SCC 614 wherein the Apex Court has held that the veracity of the proceedings pending against an accused before court below can be examined more appropriately after the charges have been framed. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that in view of above- mentioned categorical pronouncement of Supreme Court, the preliminary objections raised by the learned A.G.A is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state-opposite party-1 and upon consideration of the judgement of Supreme Court referred to above, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is wholly misconceived. It is accordingly rejected.

7. Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 17.05.2023 was lodged from by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and was registered as Case Crime No. 263 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Ramgarh Tal, District Gorakhpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely Satish Kumar (applicant herein), Sudha Singh, two Bhabhi of Satish Kumar, Girish Kumar were nominated as named accused whereas some unknown persons were also been arraigned as accused.

8. Gravamen of the allegation made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that applicant, who is already a married man, enter into relationship with the prosecutrix and made a false promise of marriage. The prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 bonafidly breached the promise so extended by applicant and on basis thereof, she entered into physical relationship with applicant. Subsequently, it was discovered that applicant is already married and therefore, the promise extended by applicant to the prosecutrix was false right from its inception. Accordingly aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged.

9. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, he examined the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is on record as Annexure 2 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. The prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has fully supported the F.I.R. Subsequent to above, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein also she has rejoined and re-affirmed her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is not only established but the complicity of applicant in the crime in question is also established. He therefore opined to submit a charge sheet. In view of above, the Investigating Officer submitted the cahrge sheet/police report dated 18.07.2023 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. whereby and whereunder, applicant has been charge sheeted under Sections 376, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C.

10. After submission of aforementioned police report (charge sheet), cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the concerned Magistrate complied with the provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C. and ultimately in line with Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, Session Trial no. 210 of 2024 (State Vs. Satish Kumar) came to be registered against accuse/applicant.

11. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. Vide order dated 10.07.2024, he framed charges against accused/applicant, copy of which is on record at page 106 of the paper book.

12. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and is now facing trial before court below, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no charge as framed by court below could have been framed against applicant. Referring to the F.I.R., the learned counsel for applicant submits that the prosecutrix is major. The prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party. Since the prosecutrix is major on the date she entered into relationship with applicant, therefore, it shall be presumed in law that the prosecutrix understood the consequences of the relationship, she was about to enter with the applicant. On the above premise, he therefore submits that no offence as complained of can be said to have committed by applicant. As such, the charge sheet/police report submitted by Investigating Officer against applicant as well as the framing of charge order passed by court below are liable to be quashed by this Court.

13. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed this application. Learned AG.A. submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused and further the charges have also been framed against applicant by court below vide Framing of Charge Order dated

10.07.2024, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in this application. According to the learned A.G.A. during course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined various witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. including the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2. Some of these witnesses have also been nominated as prosecution witnesses in the charge sheet/police report as is evident from the recital occurring at page 89/90 of the paper book. Perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of some of the witnesses nominated in the charge sheet will go to show that these witnesses have clearly and categorically supported the F.I.R.. It is then submitted by the learned A.G.A. that at this stage, which is a pre-trial stage, the veracity of the statements the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161/164 cannot be examined by this Court. This Court cannot hold a mini-trail to find out the innocence of accused/applicant. To buttress his submission, the learned A.G.A. has referred to the judgements of Supreme Court in (i). Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 (paragraph 11), (ii). Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2023 (Okansh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 03.08.2023 (paragraph 29) and (iii) Vijaya Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3510 (paragraph 31). No such pleading/material has been brought on record on the basis of which, it can be conclusively concluded that the prosecution of applicant is malicious. Referring to the three judges Bench judgement of Supreme Court in Tarun Ji Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another, (2020) 17 SCC 556, the learned A.G.A. submits that the prosecution of applicant for the offence complained of can be sustained primarily on the ground that as per the papers accompanying the police report, sufficient evidence is there to indicate that prima-facie offence complained of has been committed by the accused/applicant. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. He therefore submits that present application is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

14. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application under Section 528 BNSS are not only borne out from the record but furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. As such no occasion arises before this Court to entertain the present application.

16. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

17. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 YK

State Vs. Satish Kumar, arising out of case crime No. 263 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Ramgarh Tal, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, F.T.C. Ist, Gorakhpur and impugned charge dated 10.7.2024 framed against the applicant by Additional District 6 Sessions Judge / F.T.C. (Crime Against Women) Gorakhpur under sections 376 (2) (n), 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. in the aforesaid Session Trial may also be quashed. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Session Trial no. 210 of 2024, State Vs. Satish Kumar, arising out of case crime No. 263 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Ramgarh Tal, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, F.T.C. Ist, Gorakhpur, during the pendency of the present case before this Hon'ble Court. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. representing State- opposite party-1 has raised a preliminary objection by contending that since the charges have already been framed against applicant by court below vide Framing of Charge Order dated 10.07.2024 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C., therefore, present application is not maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed by this Court.

5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant has referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in Sh. Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 13 SCC 614 wherein the Apex Court has held that the veracity of the proceedings pending against an accused before court below can be examined more appropriately after the charges have been framed. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that in view of above- mentioned categorical pronouncement of Supreme Court, the preliminary objections raised by the learned A.G.A is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state-opposite party-1 and upon consideration of the judgement of Supreme Court referred to above, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is wholly misconceived. It is accordingly rejected.

7. Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 17.05.2023 was lodged from by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and was registered as Case Crime No. 263 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Ramgarh Tal, District Gorakhpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely Satish Kumar (applicant herein), Sudha Singh, two Bhabhi of Satish Kumar, Girish Kumar were nominated as named accused whereas some unknown persons were also been arraigned as accused.

8. Gravamen of the allegation made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that applicant, who is already a married man, enter into relationship with the prosecutrix and made a false promise of marriage. The prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 bonafidly breached the promise so extended by applicant and on basis thereof, she entered into physical relationship with applicant. Subsequently, it was discovered that applicant is already married and therefore, the promise extended by applicant to the prosecutrix was false right from its inception. Accordingly aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged.

9. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, he examined the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is on record as Annexure 2 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. The prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has fully supported the F.I.R. Subsequent to above, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein also she has rejoined and re-affirmed her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is not only established but the complicity of applicant in the crime in question is also established. He therefore opined to submit a charge sheet. In view of above, the Investigating Officer submitted the cahrge sheet/police report dated 18.07.2023 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. whereby and whereunder, applicant has been charge sheeted under Sections 376, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C.

10. After submission of aforementioned police report (charge sheet), cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the concerned Magistrate complied with the provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C. and ultimately in line with Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, Session Trial no. 210 of 2024 (State Vs. Satish Kumar) came to be registered against accuse/applicant.

11. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. Vide order dated 10.07.2024, he framed charges against accused/applicant, copy of which is on record at page 106 of the paper book.

12. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and is now facing trial before court below, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no charge as framed by court below could have been framed against applicant. Referring to the F.I.R., the learned counsel for applicant submits that the prosecutrix is major. The prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party. Since the prosecutrix is major on the date she entered into relationship with applicant, therefore, it shall be presumed in law that the prosecutrix understood the consequences of the relationship, she was about to enter with the applicant. On the above premise, he therefore submits that no offence as complained of can be said to have committed by applicant. As such, the charge sheet/police report submitted by Investigating Officer against applicant as well as the framing of charge order passed by court below are liable to be quashed by this Court.

13. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed this application. Learned AG.A. submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused and further the charges have also been framed against applicant by court below vide Framing of Charge Order dated

10.07.2024, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in this application. According to the learned A.G.A. during course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined various witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. including the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2. Some of these witnesses have also been nominated as prosecution witnesses in the charge sheet/police report as is evident from the recital occurring at page 89/90 of the paper book. Perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of some of the witnesses nominated in the charge sheet will go to show that these witnesses have clearly and categorically supported the F.I.R.. It is then submitted by the learned A.G.A. that at this stage, which is a pre-trial stage, the veracity of the statements the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161/164 cannot be examined by this Court. This Court cannot hold a mini-trail to find out the innocence of accused/applicant. To buttress his submission, the learned A.G.A. has referred to the judgements of Supreme Court in (i). Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 (paragraph 11), (ii). Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2023 (Okansh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 03.08.2023 (paragraph 29) and (iii) Vijaya Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3510 (paragraph 31). No such pleading/material has been brought on record on the basis of which, it can be conclusively concluded that the prosecution of applicant is malicious. Referring to the three judges Bench judgement of Supreme Court in Tarun Ji Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another, (2020) 17 SCC 556, the learned A.G.A. submits that the prosecution of applicant for the offence complained of can be sustained primarily on the ground that as per the papers accompanying the police report, sufficient evidence is there to indicate that prima-facie offence complained of has been committed by the accused/applicant. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. He therefore submits that present application is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

14. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application under Section 528 BNSS are not only borne out from the record but furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. As such no occasion arises before this Court to entertain the present application.

16. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

17. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 YK