[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
Suneel vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 9 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Judgment reserved on: 04.06.2025
Judgment delivered on: 09.06.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.570 of 2018
Suneel ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas
Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/
respondent No.1.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for private respondent.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present C482 application, the
applicant has put to challenge the entire proceedings of
Special Sessions Trial No.135 of 2017 State Vs. Suneel,
pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO)/
Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, for the offences
under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and under Section
5(j)(II)/6 of the Protection of Children From the Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, and to summon the respondent No.3
in-person before this Court from the Nari Niketan
Dehradun, District Dehradun to know about the will of the
respondent No.3 and thereafter release the respondent No.3
as per her will.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the
respondent No.2-Shivcharan (complainant) has lodged an
FIR on 22.08.2017 being FIR No.353 of 2017 against the
applicant alleging therein that the applicant had enticed
away his sister Km. Laxmi (respondent No.3) and took her
away with him on 19.08.2017 at about 05:00 PM; after
being searched, the family members of the applicant said
the applicant was also absent from his house.
2
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant did not commit any offence
as alleged by the respondent No.2-complainant in the
FIR; the applicant and the victim-Laxmi (respondent
No.3) have love affection with each other; they told their
parents to marry with each other but the family
members of respondent No.3 did not get ready to marry
her with the applicant; respondent No.3 has left her
home with the applicant with her free will and went to
Panipat and got married with the applicant as per Hindu
Rituals and Customs on 10.02.2017 in Gauri Shankar
Mandir and the priest of the said Mandir also issued a
certificate to this effect to the applicant, which is
annexed as Annexure No.2 to this C482 application.
5. It is further contended by learned counsel for
the applicant that the victim (respondent No.3) was
major; applicant married to her; out of the wedlock, a
child was born. He argued that by an order of the Court,
the victim has been medically examined and she was
found above 18 years and less than 20 years of age,
therefore, offence under Section 5(j)(II)/6 of the POCSO
Act, is not made out. It is also contended by learned
counsel for the applicant that the statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that the victim has
gone with the applicant with her own will and she was
pregnant at that time and she is having threat from his
family members-Shivcharan (respondent No.2), Dheer
Singh and Sushil, therefore no offence under Section 376
IPC is made out. The statements under Section 164
Cr.P.C. are the improvement to the FIR and 161 Cr.P.C.
statements.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant did not commit any offence
3
as alleged by the complainant in the FIR and he is an
innocent person; he has falsely been implicated by the
complainant in a heinous crime, while he did not commit
any alleged offence; he has no criminal history and there
is no iota of evidence which proves that the applicant
had committed the alleged offence.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel contends on
the basis of its counter affidavit and supplementary
counter affidavit that during the course of the
investigation, the recovery of the victim was effected from
the possession of the applicant on 14.09.2017 from
Police Line Panipat, Haryana and the victim in her
statements u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. made specific
allegations against the applicant. Learned State Counsel
further contends that as per the school leaving
certificate, the date of birth of the victim (respondent
No.3) is 11.06.2000 and accordingly, on the basis of the
statements of victim, medical report of the victim,
statement of other witnesses and school leaving
certificate of the victim, the Investigating Officer
submitted the charge-sheet under the aforementioned
Sections. He further submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in
catena of judgments hold that in a proceeding under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court will not enter into
any finding of facts or hold a parallel trial.
8. Learned counsel for private respondent
submits that prima-facie the offences under Section 376
IPC and under Section 5(j)(II)/6 of the POCSO Act are
made out against the applicant, as on the basis of the
School Leaving Certificate, the victim was minor aged
about 17 years and two months at the time of alleged
incident. Applicant is making a futile and baseless
attempt to concoct a fig-leaf of defense for his heinous
4
and unconscionable offence under Section 376 of IPC by
misleading the fact.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having gone through the entire material available on
record, it transpires that prima-facie from the FIR, the
offences alleged against the applicant, are made out and
there are various disputed question of facts. This Court
while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., cannot go into the disputed question of facts
as alleged. In order to make out a case for interference
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant has to satisfy
the Court that even if the entirety of the case of the
prosecution has taken as true, no case is made out. But,
here this is not a case, therefore, this Court doesn’t
incline to interfere into the matter.
10. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed.
11. Interim order dated 05.04.2018 stands vacated.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
09.06.2025
PN
PREETI
Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fad
be38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE
81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08
D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.06.09 16:36:04 +05’30’
[ad_2]
Source link