B.N.S., Police Station Gola, District Kheri (State v. Shadab) pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District K

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings of Case No. 1065/2023 and charge-sheet No. 107/2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 635/2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S., Police Station Gola, District Kheri (State Vs. Shadab) pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kheri as well as summoning order dated 01.03.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He next submits the prosecutrix is major and her age is about 27 years. The applicant is also major. They have got married with each other. He next submits that the prosecutrix voluntarily left her parental house and went with the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in pursuance of the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by this Court in Misc. Bench No. 28985 of 2021, the prosecutrix went before the Investigating Officer to record her statement, but on the way, opposite party No.2 and his associates, armed with deadly weapons, came and took away the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, did not made any allegation against the applicant, but she changed her version in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. under the pressure of her family members. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the investigation was not conducted fairly and that the charge sheet has been filed against him arbitrarily, without considering the entire facts and evidence collected during 2 A482 No. 8989 of 2025 the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the concerned Magistrate has passed the impugned order arbitrarily and in a mechanical manner. Having no other efficacious alternative remedy, the applicant has, therefore, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Per contra, learned A.G.A. states that the applicant forcefully took away the prosecutrix with the intention to marry her. He further submits that the prosecutrix, in her statement recorded before the Magistrate, has stated that the applicant forcibly committed rape upon her. It is also submitted that on perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected during the course of investigation, cognizable offences are made out against the applicant. The Investigating Officer, after due verification and enquiry, has submitted the charge sheet against the applicant, and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in accordance with law.The innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence and the present application filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed. After considering the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court finds that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the applicant forcefully solemnized Nikah with her and also committed rape on her forcefully. The Investigating Officer after collecting sufficient evidence has filed the charge-sheet against the applicant and on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and from the allegations made in the FIR, charge sheet and cognizance order prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq & Anr.;, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 and (iv) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918. From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie 3 A482 No. 8989 of 2025 establishes the offence and whether chances of ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:- (i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of impugned cognizance order, charge sheet and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused. There is no merit in this application filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact once the prima facie offence is made out and in the present case, as per the allegation, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. Therefore, no case is made out by the applicant for interference by this Court exercising power under Section 482 CrPC for the relief claimed. Accordingly, this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant is dismissed. October 30, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings of Case No. 1065/2023 and charge-sheet No. 107/2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 635/2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S., Police Station Gola, District Kheri (State Vs. Shadab) pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kheri as well as summoning order dated 01.03.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He next submits the prosecutrix is major and her age is about 27 years. The applicant is also major. They have got married with each other. He next submits that the prosecutrix voluntarily left her parental house and went with the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in pursuance of the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by this Court in Misc. Bench No. 28985 of 2021, the prosecutrix went before the Investigating Officer to record her statement, but on the way, opposite party No.2 and his associates, armed with deadly weapons, came and took away the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, did not made any allegation against the applicant, but she changed her version in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. under the pressure of her family members. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the investigation was not conducted fairly and that the charge sheet has been filed against him arbitrarily, without considering the entire facts and evidence collected during 2 A482 No. 8989 of 2025 the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the concerned Magistrate has passed the impugned order arbitrarily and in a mechanical manner. Having no other efficacious alternative remedy, the applicant has, therefore, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Per contra, learned A.G.A. states that the applicant forcefully took away the prosecutrix with the intention to marry her. He further submits that the prosecutrix, in her statement recorded before the Magistrate, has stated that the applicant forcibly committed rape upon her. It is also submitted that on perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected during the course of investigation, cognizable offences are made out against the applicant. The Investigating Officer, after due verification and enquiry, has submitted the charge sheet against the applicant, and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in accordance with law.The innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence and the present application filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed. After considering the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court finds that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the applicant forcefully solemnized Nikah with her and also committed rape on her forcefully. The Investigating Officer after collecting sufficient evidence has filed the charge-sheet against the applicant and on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and from the allegations made in the FIR, charge sheet and cognizance order prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq & Anr.;, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 and (iv) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918. From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie 3 A482 No. 8989 of 2025 establishes the offence and whether chances of ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:- (i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of impugned cognizance order, charge sheet and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused. There is no merit in this application filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact once the prima facie offence is made out and in the present case, as per the allegation, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. Therefore, no case is made out by the applicant for interference by this Court exercising power under Section 482 CrPC for the relief claimed. Accordingly, this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant is dismissed. October 30, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench