X vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 20 January, 2025

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

X vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 20 January, 2025

Author: Bela M. Trivedi

Bench: Bela M. Trivedi

                                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL No.287 OF 2025
                                (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.11822 of 2024)

                      X                                                                 …APPELLANT(S)


                                                            VERSUS


                      THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.                                   …RESPONDENT(S)


                                                  J U D G M E N T

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant – prosecutrix has preferred the

present appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order

dated 15.05.2024 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand

at Nainital in Criminal Revision No.816 of 2023, arising

out of the order dated 11.10.2023, passed by the Special

Judge – POCSO Act/District and Sessions Judge, Tehri

Garhwal in Misc. Case No.20 of 2023, in connection with

Case Crime No.02 of 2023, registered under Sections

376(3), 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act),

whereby the High Court, while allowing the said Revision,

has set aside the order passed by the POCSO Court and

remanded the matter back to the Said Court for fresh

consideration.

Signature Not Verified

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Digitally signed by
RAVI ARORA
Date: 2025.01.21
17:00:18 IST

4. Having regard to the submissions and the material
Reason:

on record, it appears that a closure report was sought to

1
be submitted by the I.O. in connection with the criminal

case in question registered against the respondent No.2,

which was not accepted by the POCSO Court, by observing

in the Order dated 11.10.2023 as under: –

“11. It is noteworthy that in the present case,
the victim was 15 years old at the time of the
incident. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC
also provides a clear description of the
incident, and there is no reason to disbelieve
it. Merely relying on the statements of other
individuals under Section 161 CrPC to file a
final report in such a serious case is not
justified. As for the investigating officer’s
statement that there was a land dispute between
the parties, it is evident that the dispute arose
after the incident. Several individuals have also
submitted a complaint letter to the District
Magistrate regarding the accused. There is no
serious contradiction between the First
Information Report and the Victim’s statement
recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Therefore, at
this stage, this court is of the opinion that the
final report submitted by the investigating
officer is liable to be rejected, and a prima
facie case is made out against the accused,
Vijaypal, under Sections 376(3), 506 IPC, and
Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly,
the accused, Vijaypal, is liable to be charged
under these sections, and the report submitted by
the investigating officer against the complainant
under Sections 182 IPC and 22 POCSO Act is liable
to be rejected.”

5. The respondent No.2 being aggrieved by the said

Order, preferred a revision being No.816 of 2023 before

the High Court, which has been allowed by the High Court

by observing as under: –

“17. Delay, per se, may not be a ground to file
final report. In Para 10 of the impugned order,
the court has made an observation that merely
based on some statement of the Driver, etc., the
final report has been submitted. It is not so.
The final report has been submitted based on
multiple factors. In Para 8 of the impugned

2
order, observations with regard to another SIM of
the revisionist has been made.

18. The FIR, in the instant case, is undoubtedly
delayed. In between, the parties had a dispute
also. Of an alleged incident of 23.06.2022, the
FIR was lodged on 23.01.2023.

19. This Court is of the view that instead of
taking a decision, the court below could have
directed the IO to investigate on certain points
and submit a further report. Those points may
include:-

(i) Whether the revisionist has any
other mobile number? During the
course of arguments before this
Court, a statement is given by
learned counsel for the revisionist
that the revisionist had another
mobile number at the relevant time.

The IO could have very conveniently
taken this mobile number and
tracked it, and caught its
location, at the relevant time.

(ii) The revisionist claims that he was
in chardham yatra. Where did he
stay? Was he required to sign any
document during the chardham yatra?
If he was working as a Conductor in
his own bus, did he purchase any
fuel? Were there any CCTV footages?

20. These and other kind of materials could
have been placed for the perusal of the court
along with the final report. But it is not done.

21. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
court below has committed an error in straightway
rejecting the final report. As stated, the court
could have required the IO to further investigate
the case on the points, as stated hereinabove,
along with some other points, as the court deems
necessary. Therefore, the impugned order deserves
to be set aside.

22. The impugned order dated 11.10.2023, passed
in the case, is set aside. Accordingly, the
revision deserves to be allowed.

24. The revision is allowed.

25. The matter is remanded back to the court
below to decide the final report, afresh, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the
parties.”

6. From the bare reading of the impugned order passed

by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has

3
exercised the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397

of Cr.P.C., which normally should have been exercised in

a rare case. When the POCSO Court had taken the

cognizance of the alleged offence, considering the

seriousness and gravity of the offence, in our opinion,

the High Court should not have interfered with the same

and remanded the matter for fresh investigation. It may

also be noted that the High Court has directed as to how

the investigation should have been done by the I.O.,

which, according to us, was absolutely unwarranted in

exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction.

7. In that view of the matter, the present appeal

deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The

impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and

the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the POCSO Court is

restored. The case shall be proceeded further before the

concerned POCSO Court in accordance with law.

8. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

………………….J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)

………………….J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;

20TH JANUARY, 2025.

                                         4
ITEM NO.33                 COURT NO.11                 SECTION II-B

                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).11822/2024

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-05-2024
in CRR No.816/2023 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital]

X Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. Respondent(s)

Date : 20-01-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rituparn Uniyal, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR
Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv.

Mr. Amol Chitravanshi, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. In terms of the signed Judgment, the Criminal Appeal is

allowed.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

  (RAVI ARORA)                                     (MAMTA RAWAT)
COURT MASTER (SH)                                COURT MASTER (NSH)

(signed Judgment is placed on the file)

5