Samid And 2 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2019 Latest Caselaw 5559 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2601 of 2019
 

 
Revisionist :- Samid And 2 Ors.
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mirza Ali Zulfaqar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri Mirza Ali Zulfaqar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri A.D. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

This Criminal Revision has been filed with a prayer to set-aside the judgement and order dated 13.05.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge, F.T.C. (Offence against women), Rampur in S.T. No. 30 of 2019 under Sections 376, 504 and 506 I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 282 of 2018, P.S. Swar, District Rampur and also discharge the revisionist for the offences under Sections 376, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that F.I.R. has been lodged by O.P. No.2 herself in which she has stated that by giving false assurance of marrying her, the accused no.1, Samid continued to exploit her sexually and in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also, she had made main allegation of having been raped against the accused applicant no.1 while the role of accused applicant nos. 2 and 3 has been assigned to be of abusing and threatening to kill her. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2018 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 454 of 2017 and has argued that where the victim and the accused live like husband and wife together for a very long time, allegation of rape cannot be held good, hence the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing.

I have gone through the impugned order.

The trial court has recorded in the impugned order that from the perusal of the statements recorded of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the version of the F.I.R. has been supported and the victim herself in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the version of the F.I.R., hence there was sufficient evidence to frame charge against the accused applicants and accordingly, the discharge application 5 (Ka) was dismissed by it.

As far as the fact with respect to framing charges is concerned, at this stage, if the evidence leads to even suspicion that the accused would have committed the offence, that would be sufficient to frame charge. It is not essential that at the stage of charge, deep analysis be made to see whether it was sufficient for conviction of the accused under that section.

In view of the same, I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order, hence this Revision deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Order Date :- 8.7.2019

A. Mandhani