Pappoo Ram v. with CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1734 of 2021 Jasveer & Others

Mr. Nandan Arya learned counsel for the Applicant in C-482 No. 1829 of 2021 and Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, learned counsel for the Applicant in C-482 No. 1734 of 2021. Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the private Respondent. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. These two applications, heard together and being connected on facts as well as on the impugned order, invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another 1 Ashish Naithani J. Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the order dated 28 October 2021 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Haridwar.

2. By the said order the learned Special Judge rejected the Final Report No. 86/2020 (and a subsequent closure report filed after further investigation), took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 323, 376(DA), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(g) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)Act, 2012, and directed registration of a State case for trial.

3. The State’s case, in brief as gathered from the materials considered by the court below, is that an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC by the informant led to the registration of the FIR alleging that on 30 July 2020 the minor victim, aged about fifteen years, was subjected to aggravated sexual assault, followed by criminal intimidation on 8 August 2020.

4. In the course of investigation, the victim was medically examined, and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC were recorded. The Investigating Officer submitted Final Report No. 86/2020, opining that no case was made out; upon a direction for further investigation, another closure report was filed. The learned Special Judge, upon consideration of the case diary, particularly the victim’s statements and the documentary material relating to age, disagreed with the police conclusion, rejected both reports and took cognizance as aforesaid.

5. In one of the Applications,learned counsel for the Applicant asserts that impugned is mechanical; there was a Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another 2 Ashish Naithani J. neighbourhood/property dispute; that earlier preventive proceedings under Sections 107/116 of the CrPC existed; that medical examination did not reveal anyinjuries, and that the father and the son being co- accused renders the accusation inherently improbable.

6. It was therefore prayed that the cognizance order be quashed along with all consequential proceedings.

7. In the companion application, the learned Counsel for the Applicants similarly assailed impugned order, relying upon perceived inconsistencies, and on the Investigating Officer’s stance that no offence was made out.

8. The State and the complainant–private Respondent opposed the applications and supported the order of cognizance, emphasising the consistency of the victim’s statements and her minority at the time of the incident. It was further brought on record by the Investigating Officer, through a subsequent counter affidavit, that proceedings under Section 182 of the IPC had been initiated, a fact relied upon by the Applicants and contested by the complainant.

9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants, the learned Brief Holder for the State, and the learned Counsel for the complainant– private Respondent, and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the legal position governing the field is well settled. Upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC opining that no case is made out, a Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the Investigating Officer and may, if the materials collected disclose an Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another 3 Ashish Naithani J. offence, cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC notwithstanding the negative report.

10. Equally well settled are the limits on the High Court’s power to interdict criminal proceedings at the threshold. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enumerated illustrative categories where the power of quashing may be exercised, namely where the allegations do not disclose any offence, where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or abuse of process, or where the case otherwise falls within narrowly defined exceptions. The Court, however, must refrain from embarking upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence at this stage.

11. In cases alleging sexual assault under the POCSO Act, the approach of the courts is equally well settled. The testimony of the child victim, if found credible and trustworthy, does not require mechanical corroboration, and the mere absence of injuries or immediate medical signs is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to discard the accusation.

12. The impugned order is a reasoned order recording specific grounds for disagreeing with the police closureprimarily, the consistent narration by the victim in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and material indicating minority.

13. The learned Special Judge adverted to the case diary and articulated why, notwithstanding the medical papers, the matter warranted trial on charges referable to Section 6 of the POCSO Act together with allied provisions of the IPC. This exercise clearly reflects Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another 4 Ashish Naithani J. due application of mind, and the course adopted in rejecting the final report and taking cognizance is firmly sanctioned by law.

14. The submissions resting on the absence of injuries and on supposed improbabilities of the incident invite an evaluation of fact that is the province of the trial court.

15. As observed earlier, the absence of medical evidence does not, ipso facto, exculpate an accused in cases of sexual assault, nor is it uncommon that such signs may be minimal or transient. Whether the inter se relationship of the accused renders the accusation implausible, whether the background of neighbourhood discord suggests a motive for false implication, and whether inconsistencies affect credibility are all matters for cross-examination and trial, not grounds for quashing at the inception.

16. Considerable emphasis was laid by the Applicants on the stand of the Investigating Officer, including the initiation of proceedings under Section 182 of the IPC. The opinion of the police does not bind the court. Once the Special Judge has, upon an independent appraisal of the materials collected by the very investigation, recorded reasons to disagree with the closure report and to take cognizance, the subsequent opinions or departmental steps of the Investigating Officer cannot eclipse the jurisdiction validly exercised by the court below. The probative value, if any, of such later steps can be canvassed at trial.

17. The contention that the order is “mechanical” is equally untenable. The order sets out the statements relied upon, the statutory framework, and the basis for invoking aggravated provisions, while expressly noting the minority of the victim and the sensitivity of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another 5 Ashish Naithani J. offence. These features distinguish the present case from those where cognizance is taken in a cryptic or perfunctory manner. In any event, even a brief order of cognizance is not, by itself, a ground for quashing, so long as the case diary materials disclose a prima facie offence.

18. This case does not fall within any of the categories delineated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. On the contrary, the allegations, taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do disclose the commission of cognizable offences, including aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The applications are, accordingly, liable to dismissal. ORDER For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 28 October 2021 does not disclose any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 482 of the CrPC. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021 (Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand & Another) and Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021 (Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another) are, accordingly, liable to dismissal and are dismissed. Any interim order shall stand vacated. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations herein, and to do so with due expedition, considering the nature of the offence and the age of the victim at the time of the incident. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated:21.07.2025 NR Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another 6 Ashish Naithani J.

Mr. Nandan Arya learned counsel for the Applicant in C-482 No. 1829 of 2021 and Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, learned counsel for the Applicant in C-482 No. 1734 of 2021. Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the private Respondent. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. These two applications, heard together and being connected on facts as well as on the impugned order, invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another 1 Ashish Naithani J. Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the order dated 28 October 2021 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Haridwar.

2. By the said order the learned Special Judge rejected the Final Report No. 86/2020 (and a subsequent closure report filed after further investigation), took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 323, 376(DA), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(g) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)Act, 2012, and directed registration of a State case for trial.

3. The State’s case, in brief as gathered from the materials considered by the court below, is that an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC by the informant led to the registration of the FIR alleging that on 30 July 2020 the minor victim, aged about fifteen years, was subjected to aggravated sexual assault, followed by criminal intimidation on 8 August 2020.

4. In the course of investigation, the victim was medically examined, and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC were recorded. The Investigating Officer submitted Final Report No. 86/2020, opining that no case was made out; upon a direction for further investigation, another closure report was filed. The learned Special Judge, upon consideration of the case diary, particularly the victim’s statements and the documentary material relating to age, disagreed with the police conclusion, rejected both reports and took cognizance as aforesaid.

5. In one of the Applications,learned counsel for the Applicant asserts that impugned is mechanical; there was a Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another 2 Ashish Naithani J. neighbourhood/property dispute; that earlier preventive proceedings under Sections 107/116 of the CrPC existed; that medical examination did not reveal anyinjuries, and that the father and the son being co- accused renders the accusation inherently improbable.

6. It was therefore prayed that the cognizance order be quashed along with all consequential proceedings.

7. In the companion application, the learned Counsel for the Applicants similarly assailed impugned order, relying upon perceived inconsistencies, and on the Investigating Officer’s stance that no offence was made out.

8. The State and the complainant–private Respondent opposed the applications and supported the order of cognizance, emphasising the consistency of the victim’s statements and her minority at the time of the incident. It was further brought on record by the Investigating Officer, through a subsequent counter affidavit, that proceedings under Section 182 of the IPC had been initiated, a fact relied upon by the Applicants and contested by the complainant.

9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants, the learned Brief Holder for the State, and the learned Counsel for the complainant– private Respondent, and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the legal position governing the field is well settled. Upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC opining that no case is made out, a Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the Investigating Officer and may, if the materials collected disclose an Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another 3 Ashish Naithani J. offence, cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC notwithstanding the negative report.

10. Equally well settled are the limits on the High Court’s power to interdict criminal proceedings at the threshold. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enumerated illustrative categories where the power of quashing may be exercised, namely where the allegations do not disclose any offence, where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or abuse of process, or where the case otherwise falls within narrowly defined exceptions. The Court, however, must refrain from embarking upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence at this stage.

11. In cases alleging sexual assault under the POCSO Act, the approach of the courts is equally well settled. The testimony of the child victim, if found credible and trustworthy, does not require mechanical corroboration, and the mere absence of injuries or immediate medical signs is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to discard the accusation.

12. The impugned order is a reasoned order recording specific grounds for disagreeing with the police closureprimarily, the consistent narration by the victim in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and material indicating minority.

13. The learned Special Judge adverted to the case diary and articulated why, notwithstanding the medical papers, the matter warranted trial on charges referable to Section 6 of the POCSO Act together with allied provisions of the IPC. This exercise clearly reflects Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another 4 Ashish Naithani J. due application of mind, and the course adopted in rejecting the final report and taking cognizance is firmly sanctioned by law.

14. The submissions resting on the absence of injuries and on supposed improbabilities of the incident invite an evaluation of fact that is the province of the trial court.

15. As observed earlier, the absence of medical evidence does not, ipso facto, exculpate an accused in cases of sexual assault, nor is it uncommon that such signs may be minimal or transient. Whether the inter se relationship of the accused renders the accusation implausible, whether the background of neighbourhood discord suggests a motive for false implication, and whether inconsistencies affect credibility are all matters for cross-examination and trial, not grounds for quashing at the inception.

16. Considerable emphasis was laid by the Applicants on the stand of the Investigating Officer, including the initiation of proceedings under Section 182 of the IPC. The opinion of the police does not bind the court. Once the Special Judge has, upon an independent appraisal of the materials collected by the very investigation, recorded reasons to disagree with the closure report and to take cognizance, the subsequent opinions or departmental steps of the Investigating Officer cannot eclipse the jurisdiction validly exercised by the court below. The probative value, if any, of such later steps can be canvassed at trial.

17. The contention that the order is “mechanical” is equally untenable. The order sets out the statements relied upon, the statutory framework, and the basis for invoking aggravated provisions, while expressly noting the minority of the victim and the sensitivity of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another 5 Ashish Naithani J. offence. These features distinguish the present case from those where cognizance is taken in a cryptic or perfunctory manner. In any event, even a brief order of cognizance is not, by itself, a ground for quashing, so long as the case diary materials disclose a prima facie offence.

18. This case does not fall within any of the categories delineated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. On the contrary, the allegations, taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do disclose the commission of cognizable offences, including aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The applications are, accordingly, liable to dismissal. ORDER For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 28 October 2021 does not disclose any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 482 of the CrPC. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021 (Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand & Another) and Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021 (Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another) are, accordingly, liable to dismissal and are dismissed. Any interim order shall stand vacated. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations herein, and to do so with due expedition, considering the nature of the offence and the age of the victim at the time of the incident. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated:21.07.2025 NR Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another 6 Ashish Naithani J.