Allahabad High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:161673
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29317 of 2023
Applicant :- Deepak Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brijesh Tiwari
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Brijesh Tiwari learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 14.03.2023; cognizance order dated 28.04.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.529 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.31 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, pending in the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 25, Kanpur Nagar.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that instant F.I.R. has been lodged after six years and no reason for delay has been explained in the F.I.R. He next submits that as per F.I.R. allegation, on the pretext of marriage, the applicant has made physical relationship with victim. As per high school certificate, the date of birth of victim is 2002. The relationship was a consensual relationship. No offence under the alleged sections is made out. The proceedings initiated against the applicant is bad in the eye of law.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that alleged offence is supported by evidence; it is a serious allegation and at the time of allegation of rape, victim was minor. The victim has supported the prosecution case.
5. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 has held in para No.14 as follows:-
"14. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."
6. The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another has held that:
"To exercise powers under Section 482, complaint in its entirety have to be examined on basis of allegation made in complaint/FIR/Charge sheet. High Court at that stage not under an obligation to go into matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of complaint/FIR/charge sheet to be taken into consideration without any critical examination of same. Offence ought to appear ex facie on complaint/FIR/charge sheet and other documentary evidence, on record. It is thus settled that exercise of inherent power of High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize complaint/FIR/charge sheet in deciding whether case is rarest of rare case, to scuttle prosecution at its inception. Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing such proceedings."
7. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
10. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned Court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
Meenu Singh
