Satyaveer Singh v. Golu and other) under section

1. Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram along with Ms. Kanchan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer and Sri K.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for O.P. No.2.

2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit. The application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

3. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.126 of 2024 (Satyaveer Singh Vs. Golu and other) under section 328, 363, 366, 376D IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Special Judge (POSCO Act)/Additional District and Session Judge Aligarh and for quashing the summoning order dated 09.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (POSCO Act)/Additional District and Session Judge Aligarh.

5. The case of the applicant is that a first information report stood lodged by O.P. No.2 against Golu, Nahne and Balram, who are non-applicants on 04.07.2022 being FIR No. 0371 under Sections 363 and 120-B IPC with an allegation that the complainant is a resident of district Aligarh and the victim, who is aged about 16 years 4 months, a minor, and on 01.07.2022 at 09:30 A.M, the co- accused Golu son of Ram Prasad had enticed the victim. Post lodging of the FIR, under Section 161 of CrPC, the victim came up with stand that taking the excuse of answering the nature's call, the victim on a sweet-will had left the house and she had developed intimacy with the accused Golu. Statement under Section 164 of CrPC stood recorded of the victim wherein the allegation was made upon Balram, the non-applicant and that he after putting something on the mouth of the victim, made her unconscious and took her in a two-wheeler and the face of the accused was covered with the mask. The Investigating Officer stood appointed and he submitted a final report against the accused and non-applicant. Thereafter, pursuant to the order of re-investigation, Final Report came to be submitted on 22.03.2023 and thereafter protest petition came to be preferred by O.P. No.2, wherein the applicant herein was marked as an accused. Post recording of the statements under Section 200 of the complainant and 202 of the victim the applicant came to be summoned on 09.04.2025 under Sections 328, 363, 366, 376-D IPC read with Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no occasion to have summoned the applicant under the aforesaid sections, particularly when neither any statement under Section 161 nor under Section 164 CrPC, there was any allegation with respect to outraging the modesty and rape. He further submits that even the name of the applicant at no point of time was taken by the victim and further a Final Report came to be submitted against the non- applicants, who were three in number and were marked as an accused in the first information report and on further direction for re-investigation again final report came to be submitted, however, fro the very first time, the name of the applicant stands surfaced as an accused in the protest petition. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the statements under Section 200 of CrPC, of the O.P. No.2, it has been deposed that the accused Golu along with the applicant herein had threatened the victim that he would murder the O.P. No.2. He further submits that the victim in her statement under Section 202 of CrPC has alleged that the applicant had committed rape. Submission is that the said story is thoroughly improbable, particularly when it is the classic case of improvements and developments just in order to falsely implicate the applicant as it was neither the case at the time of deposition under Sections 161 or 164 CrPC for outraging the modesty or commission of rape. He further submits that the victim was also not subjected to medical examination. He also submits that it is improbable and beyond the comprehension of a prudent person that the victim would not choose to depose that she was subjected to rape, when on her instance, the re-investigation post submission of final report was submitted. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall be preferring a discharge application before the court below and till discharge application is decided, protection be accorded.

6. Sri Chaudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2, submits that at the stage of summoning what would relevant would be the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC and according to him, the statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC would not dilute the rigors of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. He further submits that it is for the applicant to prefer a discharge application.

7. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the same.

8. Considering the submissions raised at the Bar and the statements so sought to be made by them, the application stands disposed of while observing that in case appropriate proceeding in the form of discharge application is preferred before the court below, then the same shall be decided with most expedition, preferably by 14.08.2025 strictly in accordance with the law of the land, as per the statutory compliance to be made by the applicant.

9. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Complaint Case No.126 of 2024 (Satyaveer Singh Vs. Golu and other) under section 328, 363, 366, 376D IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Special Judge (POSCO Act)/Additional District and Session Judge Aligarh, pending in the Court of Judical Magistrate-First, Chitrakoot.

10. The protection accorded to the applicant is only available subject to compliance of terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram along with Ms. Kanchan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer and Sri K.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for O.P. No.2.

2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit. The application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

3. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.126 of 2024 (Satyaveer Singh Vs. Golu and other) under section 328, 363, 366, 376D IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Special Judge (POSCO Act)/Additional District and Session Judge Aligarh and for quashing the summoning order dated 09.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (POSCO Act)/Additional District and Session Judge Aligarh.

5. The case of the applicant is that a first information report stood lodged by O.P. No.2 against Golu, Nahne and Balram, who are non-applicants on 04.07.2022 being FIR No. 0371 under Sections 363 and 120-B IPC with an allegation that the complainant is a resident of district Aligarh and the victim, who is aged about 16 years 4 months, a minor, and on 01.07.2022 at 09:30 A.M, the co- accused Golu son of Ram Prasad had enticed the victim. Post lodging of the FIR, under Section 161 of CrPC, the victim came up with stand that taking the excuse of answering the nature's call, the victim on a sweet-will had left the house and she had developed intimacy with the accused Golu. Statement under Section 164 of CrPC stood recorded of the victim wherein the allegation was made upon Balram, the non-applicant and that he after putting something on the mouth of the victim, made her unconscious and took her in a two-wheeler and the face of the accused was covered with the mask. The Investigating Officer stood appointed and he submitted a final report against the accused and non-applicant. Thereafter, pursuant to the order of re-investigation, Final Report came to be submitted on 22.03.2023 and thereafter protest petition came to be preferred by O.P. No.2, wherein the applicant herein was marked as an accused. Post recording of the statements under Section 200 of the complainant and 202 of the victim the applicant came to be summoned on 09.04.2025 under Sections 328, 363, 366, 376-D IPC read with Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no occasion to have summoned the applicant under the aforesaid sections, particularly when neither any statement under Section 161 nor under Section 164 CrPC, there was any allegation with respect to outraging the modesty and rape. He further submits that even the name of the applicant at no point of time was taken by the victim and further a Final Report came to be submitted against the non- applicants, who were three in number and were marked as an accused in the first information report and on further direction for re-investigation again final report came to be submitted, however, fro the very first time, the name of the applicant stands surfaced as an accused in the protest petition. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the statements under Section 200 of CrPC, of the O.P. No.2, it has been deposed that the accused Golu along with the applicant herein had threatened the victim that he would murder the O.P. No.2. He further submits that the victim in her statement under Section 202 of CrPC has alleged that the applicant had committed rape. Submission is that the said story is thoroughly improbable, particularly when it is the classic case of improvements and developments just in order to falsely implicate the applicant as it was neither the case at the time of deposition under Sections 161 or 164 CrPC for outraging the modesty or commission of rape. He further submits that the victim was also not subjected to medical examination. He also submits that it is improbable and beyond the comprehension of a prudent person that the victim would not choose to depose that she was subjected to rape, when on her instance, the re-investigation post submission of final report was submitted. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall be preferring a discharge application before the court below and till discharge application is decided, protection be accorded.

6. Sri Chaudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2, submits that at the stage of summoning what would relevant would be the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC and according to him, the statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC would not dilute the rigors of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. He further submits that it is for the applicant to prefer a discharge application.

7. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the same.

8. Considering the submissions raised at the Bar and the statements so sought to be made by them, the application stands disposed of while observing that in case appropriate proceeding in the form of discharge application is preferred before the court below, then the same shall be decided with most expedition, preferably by 14.08.2025 strictly in accordance with the law of the land, as per the statutory compliance to be made by the applicant.

9. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Complaint Case No.126 of 2024 (Satyaveer Singh Vs. Golu and other) under section 328, 363, 366, 376D IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Special Judge (POSCO Act)/Additional District and Session Judge Aligarh, pending in the Court of Judical Magistrate-First, Chitrakoot.

10. The protection accorded to the applicant is only available subject to compliance of terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad