HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 2990 of 2020
Applicant :- Rajesh Chauhan @ Lalla
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard SriSantosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suraj Singh, learned brief holder for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of entire criminal proceedings of Spl. S.T. No. 84 of 2019 arising out of Complaint Case No. 35 of 2018 as well as summoning order dated 01.03.2019 under Sections 354 I.P.C., Section 7/8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act and Section 3(1)(B)(i) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ghughuli District Maharajganj.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. No such occurrence has ever taken place. Accused have been summoned by the trial court without there being sufficient evidence on record, therefore, summoning order needs to be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicants further stated that if proceedings are allowed to continue, that would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.
I have gone through the complaint.
Allegation against the applicant is that he had molested the daughter of O.P. No. 2 which was a minor girl aged about 16 years. After having recorded statement of victim and her mother under Section 200 202 Cr.P.C., who have supported the prosecution version, the summoning order has been passed under the above-mentioned sections.
The arguments which are made by the learned counsel for the applicants are related to factual aspect which cannot be seen at this stage in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.1.2020
A. Mandhani
