Patiram v. Guddu) U
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112162 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19754 of 2025 Applicant :- Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar (AOR No. A/P 0348/2012) holding brief of Sri Subhash Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned AGA for the State. 2. This Court on 30.05.2025 issued notices upon opposite party no.2 and there is an office report dated 03.07.2025 that notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 personally as per the report of In-charge CJM, Sambhal at chandausi. Till the dictation of the order, nobody has put in appearance till the dictation of the order. 3. A joint statement has been made by learned counsels for the parties that they do not propose to file any supplementary affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of documents available on record. 4. With the consent of the parties the application has been decided at the fresh stage. 5. The present application U/s 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 24 of 2023 (Patiram vs. Guddu) U/s 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Junawai, District Sambhal pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Additional Session Judge, Sambhal as well as summoning order dated 19.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi. 6. The case of the applicant is that a first information stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 01.04.2023 being 0119 of 2023 U/s 504, 323, 354 (ka), 506 IPC read with 7/8 POCOS Act against the applicant with an allegation that opposite party no.2/ first informant / complainant is a resident of village Mandoli, P.S. Junawai, District Sambhal. On 01.04.2023 at 03:00 hours, the victim being the daughter of opposite party no.2 aged about 12 years was coming to her house from agricultural field then the applicant herein who come are neighbour of opposite party no.2 started hurling abuses upon the victim and when the same was resisted then he assaulted her and exhibited indecent acts and when the victim made hue and cry then hand was being put to be pressed upon the mouth of the victim and he threatened the daughter of the victim and ran away. A complaint was lodged on 01.04.2023 before the police station then the first information report came to be lodged. The statement of the opposite party no.2 was recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. followed by the statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim and, thereafter, on 19.04.2023 a final report came to be submitted against the applicant. Thereafter a protest petition came to be preferred by the opposite party no.2 and the case stood transformed into a complaint case and post recording into a statement of the complainant U/s 200 Cr.P.C. & of the victim U/s 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been summoned on 19.04.2024 by the court of Additional District Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sambhal at Chandausi, under Section 354 IPC read with Section 7/8 POCSO Act. Questioning the summoning order, the applicant has filed the present application. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a totally false and incorrect allegations have been levelled and the said fact further stand substantiated and is writ large as post lodging of the first informant report U/s 504, 323, 354 IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act and recording of the statement U/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., a final report came to be submitted and without therein being any external inputs on a protest petition, the applicant had been summoned in the penal section. The submission is that adequate weitage ought to have been accorded to the statement U/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and the opposite party no.2 and the victim but in a routine manner without there being any prima-facie satisfaction of attraction of the offences, the applicant has been summoned. It is further submitted that it might be that U/s 161 Cr.P.C. the offence are alleged to bave been made but the victim herself under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had denied any involvement for commission of the offence then it marks significance and be a vital issue. Further the submission is that the victim was not subjected of any medical examination and in absence of any medical examination, there was no occasion to summon the application as adverse inference would be drawn. 8. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that what would be relevant in summons under a complaint case, would be statement U/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C and whatever be the statement U/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. are concerned, they would not dilute the rigourse U/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the instructions received from the applicants, the applicant shall be filing a discharge application. 10. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 11. Apparently, in the present case in hand, a first information report stood lodged by the opposite party no.2- complainant/ first informant against the applicant U/s 504, 323, 354 (Ka), 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. In the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. allegations against the applicant pin pointed allegation but in section 164 Cr.P.C, the involvement of the applicant was not made. However, post submission of the final report, protest petition was filed and the case was transformed into a complaint case and in the statement U/s 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and Section 202 Cr.P.C. of the victim, has made pin pointed allegations against the applicant for pressing the breast and extending indecent behaviour. Since the learned counsel for the applicant seeks to file a discharge application, thus this Court is not going into the merits of the matter. Accordingly, the present application is disposed directing the applicant to submit a discharge application by 31.07.2025 and on the receipt of the said motion the court below shall decide the discharge application with most expedition. 12. Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant pursuant to the complaint case no.24 of 2023 (Patiram vs. Guddu), under section 354 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Junawai District Sambhal pending before the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi. 13. The protection accorded to the applicant is only available subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and timeline as provided therein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. 14. The passing of the order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has adjudicated the matter on the merits. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 /C. MANI ( Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad