Manish Mehrotra … v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil and another

: G.A., Piyush Shrivastava Prashast Puri AND Manoj Ruhela APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 631 of 2022 …..Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Sectt and another …..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashast Puri, Nadeem Murtaza, Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Piyush Shrivastava Paavan Awasthi Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, assisted by Sri Anshuman Verma, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. None appears for opposite party no.2.

2. Present applications have been filed for the following main reliefs: 2 A482 No. - 321 of 2022 "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No.881/2018 (Complainant of Complaint Case No. 881/2018 vs. Manish Mehrotra and Another) under sections 376 read with section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, III, Lucknow. It is further prayed that that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, IlI, Lucknow whereby the petitioner has been summoned as an accused under Section 376 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is further prayed that the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No.881/2018 (Complainant of Complaint Case No. 881/2018 vs. Manish Mehrotra and Another) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, III, Lucknow may kindly remain stayed during the pendency of the present petition."

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the statement under Sections 200 was recorded on 9.8.2018 and the supplementary statement of Shalu Singh was recorded on 7.1.2019. Thereafter, subordinate court passed the order on 31.8.2020 and directed that the complainant should produce the medical papers, however, the order sheet indicates that she did not turn up and she also did not submit any medical papers. It has been submitted that the court below summoned the applicants on the basis of statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the medical report was not available, therefore, learned counsel submits that the order is bad in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that when the complaint was filed, the court below had called police report and in the police report, it was reported that there was no such incident and the complainant was not residing at the given address. It has been submitted that notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 but no counter affidavit has been filed, therefore, the statement of fact as made in application should be treated as admitted. 3 A482 No. - 321 of 2022

4. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that medical is only corroborating evidence and it is not determinative of entire facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the statement of victim under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is sufficient. He has relied upon the judgment of the Phool Singh vs. State of M.P. (2022) 2 SCC 74 and Ganesan vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police (2020) 10 SCC 573. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of the record goes to indicate that there is offence of rape against the applicants and she has made categorical statement against the accused. Even single testimony of victim is sufficient for conviction or to proceed in the case. The Supreme Court in the case of Ganesan (Supra), in Para 11 observed as under: "11. On evaluating the deposition of PW 3 victim on the touchstone of the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that the sole testimony of the PW 3 victim is absolutely trustworthy and unblemished and her evidence is of sterling quality.''

5. After going through the record, I find that the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. makes out a case against the applicants. There is clear allegation of rape. The accused Manoj Ruhela closed the door and accused Manish Mehrotra committed rape which is the allegation in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The said statement is also fortified by the witness Shalu Singh and she has also supported the complainant case as narrated by the complainant. So far the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that counter affidavit has not been filed, therefore, the statement of fact as made in the application should be read as as correct and admitted by opposite party no.2. This argument will not support the case of the applicants for the reason that the court below has to see the evidence available on record, particularly the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after going through the same, if the offence is made out, then the court below was justified in issuing summons.

6. Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh and others, (2023) 18 SCC 399 has categorically held that at 4 A482 No. - 321 of 2022 the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial and adduce evidence on record as it has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not. From a bare perusal of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie the offence is made out as there is sufficient material available on record.

7. This Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot do mini trial. This Court cannot weigh the evidence. Certainly, for adducing evidence, trial is required.

8. The applications are devoid of merit and are dismissed. October 31, 2025 Sachin (Brij Raj Singh,J.) SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: G.A., Piyush Shrivastava Prashast Puri AND Manoj Ruhela APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 631 of 2022 …..Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Sectt and another …..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashast Puri, Nadeem Murtaza, Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Piyush Shrivastava Paavan Awasthi Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, assisted by Sri Anshuman Verma, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. None appears for opposite party no.2.

2. Present applications have been filed for the following main reliefs: 2 A482 No. - 321 of 2022 "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No.881/2018 (Complainant of Complaint Case No. 881/2018 vs. Manish Mehrotra and Another) under sections 376 read with section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, III, Lucknow. It is further prayed that that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, IlI, Lucknow whereby the petitioner has been summoned as an accused under Section 376 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is further prayed that the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No.881/2018 (Complainant of Complaint Case No. 881/2018 vs. Manish Mehrotra and Another) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, III, Lucknow may kindly remain stayed during the pendency of the present petition."

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the statement under Sections 200 was recorded on 9.8.2018 and the supplementary statement of Shalu Singh was recorded on 7.1.2019. Thereafter, subordinate court passed the order on 31.8.2020 and directed that the complainant should produce the medical papers, however, the order sheet indicates that she did not turn up and she also did not submit any medical papers. It has been submitted that the court below summoned the applicants on the basis of statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the medical report was not available, therefore, learned counsel submits that the order is bad in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that when the complaint was filed, the court below had called police report and in the police report, it was reported that there was no such incident and the complainant was not residing at the given address. It has been submitted that notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 but no counter affidavit has been filed, therefore, the statement of fact as made in application should be treated as admitted. 3 A482 No. - 321 of 2022

4. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that medical is only corroborating evidence and it is not determinative of entire facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the statement of victim under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is sufficient. He has relied upon the judgment of the Phool Singh vs. State of M.P. (2022) 2 SCC 74 and Ganesan vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police (2020) 10 SCC 573. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of the record goes to indicate that there is offence of rape against the applicants and she has made categorical statement against the accused. Even single testimony of victim is sufficient for conviction or to proceed in the case. The Supreme Court in the case of Ganesan (Supra), in Para 11 observed as under: "11. On evaluating the deposition of PW 3 victim on the touchstone of the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that the sole testimony of the PW 3 victim is absolutely trustworthy and unblemished and her evidence is of sterling quality.''

5. After going through the record, I find that the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. makes out a case against the applicants. There is clear allegation of rape. The accused Manoj Ruhela closed the door and accused Manish Mehrotra committed rape which is the allegation in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The said statement is also fortified by the witness Shalu Singh and she has also supported the complainant case as narrated by the complainant. So far the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that counter affidavit has not been filed, therefore, the statement of fact as made in the application should be read as as correct and admitted by opposite party no.2. This argument will not support the case of the applicants for the reason that the court below has to see the evidence available on record, particularly the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after going through the same, if the offence is made out, then the court below was justified in issuing summons.

6. Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh and others, (2023) 18 SCC 399 has categorically held that at 4 A482 No. - 321 of 2022 the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial and adduce evidence on record as it has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not. From a bare perusal of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie the offence is made out as there is sufficient material available on record.

7. This Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot do mini trial. This Court cannot weigh the evidence. Certainly, for adducing evidence, trial is required.

8. The applications are devoid of merit and are dismissed. October 31, 2025 Sachin (Brij Raj Singh,J.) SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench