High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113907 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19609 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohammad Zeeshan Siddiqui (Kabbir) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Istyak Khan,Shiv Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Meghraj Pandey,Santosh Kumar Kesarwani,Shivam Kumar Pal Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
7. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not. 9. Hence, the instant application cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Shiv Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing of entire proceedings and chargesheet dated 15.02.2023 including cognizance order dated 18.03.2023 in Sessions Trial No.779 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.98 of 2022, State v. Mohd. Jeeshan Siddiqui, under Sections 377, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3, 5 (1) of Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, P.s. Mahila Thana, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of A.D.J./F.T.C.-Ist, Allahabad. 3. In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged by O.P. no.2 against the applicant on 19.12.2022 alleging that she met the applicant 10 years back and the applicant came close to her claiming himself to be hindu by religion, thereafter, the applicant committed rape on her both naturally and unnaturally. It is also alleged that the friends of the applicant have claims to have made video by blackmailing her, it is thereafter, that the applicant told the victim that he is ready to marry her if she changes her religion. It is also alleged that even thereafter, the applicant had raped her. In the said matter after investigation chargesheet was filed on 15.02.2023 and summons were issued on 18.03.2023. The entire proceedings including chargesheet and summoning order are under challenge by means of instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the conversion law will not be applicable in this case as the same came into force in 2020 whereas the allegation of forcing for conversion is much prior to that date. He further submits that in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that the victim had converted her religion but no date has been given in the statements. In the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she was forced to convert her religion and she was made to eat beef, thereafter, she become pregnant but abortion was carried out. It is also submitted that since it was a consensual relationship, it will not fall under the category of rape and there is nothing to show that the intention of the applicant was to cheat her, hence, the allegation of offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2019) SCC 608 wherein it is observed that consensual relationship between two adults does not attract offence under Section 376 IPC. He next contended that the instant proceedings is nothing else but a pure abuse of process of law. Further submission is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that by befooling the victim, the applicant came close to her stating that he belongs to same religion and committed rape after promising to marry her. It is later on, the victim came to know that the applicant follow the different religion, and when she opposed the same, she was harassed by the applicant, his brother and friends mentally and physically, not only this but the brother of the applicant had also raped her. He further submits that the victim was subjected to gang rape under the threat of posting her video on social media. He next submitted that the victim was forced to convert herself and made to eat beef. The statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 corroborates the prosecution story. During the course of relationship, the applicant had married someone else. It is further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. 6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants. The cognizance order has been issued after perusing the material collected during investigation of the case. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants are all disputed question of fact as to what was the date of religious conversion, when was she been physically assaulted (rape) and by whom. All these facts cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. .