IPC (State v. Sohan Lal Verma

Heard Shri Rama Kant Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the BNSS assailing the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrawasti as well as the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti in Criminal Case No.10402 of 2022 which arises out of Case Crime No.0083 of 2022 under Section 452, 376, 511 and 506 IPC (State v. Sohan Lal Verma @ Badkey and others), Police Station Bhinga, District Shrawasti. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in respect of an incident which occurred on 18.03.2022 in pursuance whereof, an FIR was lodged on 19.03.2022 bearing FIR/Case Crime No.0083 of 2022. It is urged that initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 323, 354B, 452, 504 and 506, however, later Sections 376 IPC and 511 IPC were added. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial had already commenced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti. During the course of the said trial, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution on 17.09.2024 indicating that Section 376 IPC is also attracted. It is taking note of the aforesaid and despite the objections filed by the petitioners on 10.10.2024, by means of the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti on 25.10.2024, Sections 376 and 511/34 IPC were added and the matter has been committed to the Session Court. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners filed a revision, which has also been dismissed and in the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing/setting aside of two impugned orders. The submission is that from a bare perusal of the FIR as well as the statements, there was no clear averment regarding commission of the offence under Sections 376 and 511 IPC. It is further pointed out that neither the medical report nor the statement of the doctor, who had medically examined the victim and the co-victim gave any indication regarding the commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC. In such circumstances, it was not appropriate for the trial Court to have added the aforesaid sections only to give colour of gravity to the said FIR and the alleged incident despite the fact that there is cross FIR lodged against the complainant of the present case which was registered as FIR/Case Crime No.0084 of 2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that at this stage, there is no material upon which the trial Court could have formed its justification including to Section 376 IPC and even though the revisional Court has made a remark that apparently the statement of the witnesses as well as from a perusal of the FIR, the medical report, the offence under Section 376 IPC is not clearly made out, yet it failed to intervene which is also irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the revisional Court which requires to be interfered with by this Court. Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has pointed out that the matter is seized with the trial Court. Upon an application as well as the statements given by the prosecutrix and co-prosecutrix which have been noticed, an alleged offence under Section 376/511 IPC is prima-facie made out. It is submitted that since the witnesses have not yet been examined and moreover the statements of the prosecutrix and co- prosecutrix have not yet been concluded, in such circumstances, the petition is premature. At this stage, neither the trial Court nor the revisional Court could have given any definite finding regarding the commission or non-commission of the said offence. It has also been pointed out that unless and until the statement as well as the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and co- prosecutrix is completed, till then no interference can be made. Apart from the fact that, prima-facie, as per the statement in chief recorded by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is corroborated in terms of her statement as per Section 164 Cr.P.C., which makes out for a commission of an offence, at least prima-facie, which persuade the trial Court to pass the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 and which has been affirmed by the revisional Court. In such circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material on record. Undisputedly, the matter is seized with the trial Court. During the course of statement recorded of the prosecutrix, there is an averment regarding the commission of the offence of rape and the same is yet to be tested as the witness is under cross- examination. Another co-prosecutrix is yet to be examined. At this stage, in absence of conclusion of the evidence of the prosecutrix and the co-prosecutrix, it cannot be said that there is no evidence for commission or non-commission of the alleged offence of rape. The said offence is to be tested only after the said evidence of the witnesses are over. Hence, at this stage, this Court finds that the petition is premature. The matter, at this juncture is only to be tested on prima-facie basis which is the statements of the prosecutrix and co-prosecutrix and a case apparently was found to have been made out against the accused before the trial Court, who thereafter committed the matter for the Sessions Court. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find that, at this stage, any interference is required. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to move an appropriate petition, in case if after the conclusion of the evidence of prosecutrix and co-prosecutrix, there is some material which may come to the aid of the petitioners. Order Date :- 2.6.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Shri Rama Kant Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the BNSS assailing the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrawasti as well as the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti in Criminal Case No.10402 of 2022 which arises out of Case Crime No.0083 of 2022 under Section 452, 376, 511 and 506 IPC (State v. Sohan Lal Verma @ Badkey and others), Police Station Bhinga, District Shrawasti. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in respect of an incident which occurred on 18.03.2022 in pursuance whereof, an FIR was lodged on 19.03.2022 bearing FIR/Case Crime No.0083 of 2022. It is urged that initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 323, 354B, 452, 504 and 506, however, later Sections 376 IPC and 511 IPC were added. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial had already commenced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti. During the course of the said trial, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution on 17.09.2024 indicating that Section 376 IPC is also attracted. It is taking note of the aforesaid and despite the objections filed by the petitioners on 10.10.2024, by means of the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti on 25.10.2024, Sections 376 and 511/34 IPC were added and the matter has been committed to the Session Court. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners filed a revision, which has also been dismissed and in the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing/setting aside of two impugned orders. The submission is that from a bare perusal of the FIR as well as the statements, there was no clear averment regarding commission of the offence under Sections 376 and 511 IPC. It is further pointed out that neither the medical report nor the statement of the doctor, who had medically examined the victim and the co-victim gave any indication regarding the commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC. In such circumstances, it was not appropriate for the trial Court to have added the aforesaid sections only to give colour of gravity to the said FIR and the alleged incident despite the fact that there is cross FIR lodged against the complainant of the present case which was registered as FIR/Case Crime No.0084 of 2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that at this stage, there is no material upon which the trial Court could have formed its justification including to Section 376 IPC and even though the revisional Court has made a remark that apparently the statement of the witnesses as well as from a perusal of the FIR, the medical report, the offence under Section 376 IPC is not clearly made out, yet it failed to intervene which is also irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the revisional Court which requires to be interfered with by this Court. Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has pointed out that the matter is seized with the trial Court. Upon an application as well as the statements given by the prosecutrix and co-prosecutrix which have been noticed, an alleged offence under Section 376/511 IPC is prima-facie made out. It is submitted that since the witnesses have not yet been examined and moreover the statements of the prosecutrix and co- prosecutrix have not yet been concluded, in such circumstances, the petition is premature. At this stage, neither the trial Court nor the revisional Court could have given any definite finding regarding the commission or non-commission of the said offence. It has also been pointed out that unless and until the statement as well as the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and co- prosecutrix is completed, till then no interference can be made. Apart from the fact that, prima-facie, as per the statement in chief recorded by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is corroborated in terms of her statement as per Section 164 Cr.P.C., which makes out for a commission of an offence, at least prima-facie, which persuade the trial Court to pass the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 and which has been affirmed by the revisional Court. In such circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material on record. Undisputedly, the matter is seized with the trial Court. During the course of statement recorded of the prosecutrix, there is an averment regarding the commission of the offence of rape and the same is yet to be tested as the witness is under cross- examination. Another co-prosecutrix is yet to be examined. At this stage, in absence of conclusion of the evidence of the prosecutrix and the co-prosecutrix, it cannot be said that there is no evidence for commission or non-commission of the alleged offence of rape. The said offence is to be tested only after the said evidence of the witnesses are over. Hence, at this stage, this Court finds that the petition is premature. The matter, at this juncture is only to be tested on prima-facie basis which is the statements of the prosecutrix and co-prosecutrix and a case apparently was found to have been made out against the accused before the trial Court, who thereafter committed the matter for the Sessions Court. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find that, at this stage, any interference is required. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to move an appropriate petition, in case if after the conclusion of the evidence of prosecutrix and co-prosecutrix, there is some material which may come to the aid of the petitioners. Order Date :- 2.6.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench