[ad_1]
Allahabad High Court
Govinda vs State Of U.P. 3 Other on 22 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59488 Judgment Reserved On 16.04.2025 Judgment Delivered On 22.04.2025 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12904 of 2025 Applicant :- Govinda Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. 3 Other Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav,Shriyansh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikash Sharma, learned AGA for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned complaint dated 31.08.2022, summoning order dated 19.10.2024 and entire Criminal Proceeding of complaint case No. may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the 716/2022 (Karelal Vs Govinda) under section 376, 506 IPC and section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station – Sisolar, District – Hamirpur, pending before the A.D.J. /Special Judge POCSO Act, Hamirpur, District – Hamirpur.
3. This Court had issued notices upon the opposite party no. 4 and there is an officer report dated 17.12.2024 that as per the report of CJM, Hamirpur, notice has been served upon the opposite party no. 4. Till the dictation of the order, nobody has put appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 4.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned State Law Officer have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
5. The case of the applicant is that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 31.08.2022 with an allegation that the daughter of the opposite party no. 2, victim aged 11 years who is a student of Class-VI on 11.08.2022 had gone to an oil expeller for getting oil from the mustard. However, as soon as, she reached the place being Baramdeo at about 4.00 P.M. in the evening, the applicant who was in his motor-cycle, parked the motor-cycle in front of the victim and requested her to sit with him and when the victim showed her reluctance then he exerted pressure and proceeded to throw her on the floor and then touched the breast (chest) of the victim and committed an indecent act while committing offence under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act while inserting his finger in the private part of the victim and also slapped the victim and when the victim screamed then one of the villagers came and he saw the said state of affairs and when confronted with the same, the applicant ran away while riding the bike and the said incident was narrated to the complainant and thereafter post lodging of a complaint before S.P. Hamirpur and D.I.G., Banda on 22.08.2022, the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. stood lodged on 31.08.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hamirpur called from a report from Police Station- Sisolar, District Hamirpur wherein the witnesses had come up with a stand that no such incident had occurred, however, on the basis of the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as of the complainant, and an independent witness and of the victim, the applicant has been summoned under Sections 376 and 506 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act on 19.10.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and roped in the criminal proceedings for no fault of his, since he is innocent.
7. Submission is that the sequence of the dates and events are material, particularly, when the incident took place on 11.08.2022, however, complaint was lodged after 11 days on 22.08.2022 before the S.P. Hamirpur and D.I.G., Banda on 22.08.2022 and the complaint stood preferred on 31.08.2022. Contention is that a well planned and concocted story has been built up to falsely implicate the applicant. It is also submitted that the police report dated 23.11.2022 itself is a vital document which ought to have been considered before summoning the applicant, particularly, when majority of the persons who are the villagers and natives of the said village had themselves shown ignorance about the said incidence as according to them, applicant was even not present in the village on the date of the occurrence of the event. He further submits that the real sister of the applicant herein being Km. Poonam daughter of Kishori Lal had lodged a first information report vide Case Crime No. 42 of 2022 under Sections 147, 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC of Police Station Sisolar, District Hamipur against Deepak Prajapati, Amit, Rahesh, Bauwa and Ram Badan Prajapati on 27.03.2022 and Deepak Prajapati is the son of Ram Charan is a real nephew of Karelal, Karelal and Ram Charan are real brothers. Submission is that even a charge-sheet stood submitted against Deepak Prajapati before Juvenile Board, Hamirpur and other four accused before Chief Judicial Magistrate on 02.04.2022 and cognizance has been taken on 13.04.2022. Thus, it is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated and it is a case of revenge and vindictive attitude, further the applicant is living in Allahabad City and preparing for civil services examination. On the strength of the said arguments, it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed.
8. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that on the nature of the allegations contained in the complaint as well as the depositions made under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. itself corroborates and this Court in view of the gravity of the offences that too invoking provisions of POCSO Act would not interfere, particularly, when the victim has also deposed that her modesty was sought to be outraged.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
10. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged by the complainant on 31.08.2022 against the applicant relatable to the commission of the offences on 11.08.2022 at 4.00 pm in the evening when the daughter of the complainant being the victim who is the aged about six years had gone to do certain household works and the applicant therein barged upon her and forcefully took her under his strength and thereafter proceeded to commit offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and also untied the cloth which the victim was wearing below the naval region while inserting her hand on the private parts. The complaint dated 31.08.2022 under Section 156 Cr.P.C. also discloses the fact that on 22.08.2022, a complaint was also lodged before the S.P. Hamirpur and D.I.G., Banda and thereafter complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was lodged. The statement of the complaint under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is confimity and consonance with the complaint and further one of the witnesses being Raja Bhaiya also supports the allegations contained in the complaint. On top of it, the victim is also alleged commission of the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
11. In nutshell, it can be said that the depositions under Section 200 read with 202 Cr.P.C. are not on polls apart but rather they are in-conformity and in-consonance with the applicant. So far as the argument sought to be raised by the applicant that there had been a delay of the lodging of the applicant as the incident is dated 11.08.2022 but the complaint was lodged under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 31.8.2022 is concerned, the same may not be of much relevance at this stage, particularly, the allegations are of Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act that too relatable to a rural area relating to a minor. Moreover the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. also refers to the complaint being made before the S.P. Hamipur and D.I.G. Banda on 22.08.2022.
12. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that there happens to be a police report, thus, the proceedings cannot be allowed to be continued is concerned, the same is also not convinciable, particularly, the same may be one of the defences which are to be thrashed out when the trial commences.
13. As regards the contention raised by the applicant that it was on account of criminal proceedings sought to be lodged by the applicant faction which became a motivating factor for lodging of the false and frivolous complaint is concerned, the same may be one of the defences though tenable or not but consideration of the same is to be made at the stage when the trial commences and not at the present juncture in the present proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
14. Nonetheless, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. (2022) LiveLaw (SC)153 had the occasion to consider the ambit and the extent of intervention under Article 482 Cr.P.C., it was observed as under:-
“15. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others (supra) as under :
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
16. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 2021 SC 1918.”
15. Looking into the facts of the case from all the four corners of law as well as the allegations so sought to be levelled against the applicant for commission of offence under Section 376, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act prima facie, it cannot be said that the said penal sections are not attracted.
16. Accordingly, I find no good ground to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. while quashing the criminal proceedings. Resultantly, the application is dismissed.
17. Needless to point out that passing of this order may not be construed to be any expressions on the merits of the matter as it is open for the trial court to proceed with the matter and to decide the same strictly in accordance with law with utmost expedition.
Order Date :- 22.04.2025
A. Prajapati
[ad_2]
Source link