Allahabad High Court
Bhuwnesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29633 of 2019
Applicant :- Bhuwnesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Mohan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 8735/9 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 1178 of 2017, under Sections 452, 376, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Katghar, District Moradabad as well as the impugned charge sheet dated 19.5.2018.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that accused-applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2, as she was a consenting party. He has drawn attention to the statement given by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which it has been stated by her that the accused used to come to her house because of being of the same caste and wanted to marry her. Some initial ceremonies was also performed with respect to the marriage between them and in the meantime he started indulging and having sexual intercourse with the opposite party no. 2 keeping her under impression that he would marry her. Subsequently, demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made, failing which marriage was refused. Reliance has been placed on Umesh Lilani Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. in Misc. Crl. Case No. 16158 of 2019 and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., therefore, it was argued that this amounts to malicious prosecution of the accused-applicant and hence, charge sheet needs to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of quashing and stated that rulings, which has been relied by the learned counsel for the applicant, are not applicable in this case as in both the cited rulings ladies were working, while the fact of the present case is different.
I have gone through the F.I.R..
In it, it is recorded that since three years accused-applicant had started coming to the house of opposite party no. 2 and got her entangled in his love trap. The applicant was working as driver in L & T Company and stated that he wanted to marry opposite party no. 2 and keeping her under such impression, he continued to exploit her sexually. The opposite party no. 2 insisted for a date of marriage to be fixed, thereafter, both of them had gone to the house of parents of the applicant, where ceremonies of the marriage were performed but subsequently demand of an Alto Car and Rs. 5,00,000/- was began to be made, to which opposite party no. 2 replied that she was widow lady, she cannot afford all this. After this, accused-applicant did not marry her. Charge sheet has been submitted by the police after investigation in this case. The statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation cannot be disbelieved in application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage.
The point involved in the present case is whether the accused-applicant had intention to marry the opposite party no. 2 right from the beginning or was he indulging in sexual activity only to satisfy his lust. If it was a case that he never intended to marry and was trying to satisfy his lust, this would amount to a case of rape. No finding can be given by this court on such aspect in this case, as the same would require trial. It cannot be denied that cognizable offence is made out in the present case.
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 applicant. 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, the applicant may approach the trial court to seeks discharge, if so advised, and before the said forum, he may raise all the pleas which have been taken by him here. If such application is made, the same shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with law. The committal court shall commit the case within 30 days subject to compliance of provision of Section 209 Cr.P.C. to facilitate the trial court to hear and dispose of discharge application.
The applicant may appear before Committal Court within 30 days to get his case committed to the Court of Sessions so that the accused may move discharge application before it. For a period of 30 days from the date of order, no coercive action shall be taken. But if the accused do not appear before the Committal Court, the said Court shall take coercive steps to procure their attendance.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
A.P. Pandey
