Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Sengar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 August, 2023
Bench: Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168144
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2022 of 2023
Appellant :- Rajesh Sengar
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Bahadur,Prem Narayan Singh,Ravi Yadav,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 8.8.2022 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hathras in S.S.T. No. 356 of 2022, State Vs. Rajesh Sengar, framing charge against the appellant under sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 and perused the record.
It is alleged that the FIR was lodged on 8.4.2022 regarding the incident from date 8.4.2020 to 25.3.2022. The victim refused from her internal medical examination. In her statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. though the victim reiterated the version of the FIR but from the report received from the District Jail dated 8.10.2022, from 24.7.2022 to 23.9.2022 when the appellant was in prison, the opp. party no. 2 visited him 11 times. The opp. party no. 2, her mother and sister are habitual of filing such type of complaints. Previously also, the mother of the opp. party no. 2 had lodged an FIR against Dhara under sections 354 kha, 354 Gha, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The opp. party no. 2 lodged an FIR on 16.9.2016 under section 452, 354-A I.P.C. against Sonu wherein the trials are said to be pending. It is further submitted that filing such suits against the innocent persons, the opp. party no. 2, her mother and sister are habitual of extorting money from them. In the present case also the opp. party no. 2 visited 11 times in Aligarh jail to meet the appellant and fix the amount and at last, she received Rs. 10 lacs through the brother the appellant with regard to resolve the present matter, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.
Learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 submits that charge has been framed against the appellant and it cannot be quashed on the basis of the investigation done by the Investigating Officer. The appellant could go for quashing of the chargesheet by way of application under section 482 Cr.P.C. but here the appellant has filed an appeal against the order passed for framing of charge. The statements of P.W.-1 is said to have been recorded who supported the prosecution version and after framing the charge, only the application can be given under section 216 Cr.P.C.
From the perusal of the record, it is found that there is allegation against the appellant of establishing physical relations with the opp. party no. 2 on the pretext of marriage and now the appellant is said to have denied from marriage. There is allegation that the appellant uttered caste based words, gave threat of life and also gave threat of making viral the videos of the various incidents.
If we go through the judgments of Apex Court placed before the court, Shambhu Kharwar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh decided on 12.8.2022 and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh decided on 1.3.2021, in the case of Shambhu Kharwar the court described the distinction between a 'false promise' and the 'breach of a promise'. As per the facts of that case, the court found the relationship between the parties purely of a consensual nature. In the judgment of Sonu (supra) the court found that there was no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry made to the second respondent was false at the inception and there was subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant to marry the second respondent. Here the facts are different in this case, it is yet to be decided by the evidence of the parties that whether it was a 'false promise' from the inception or it was a 'breach of the promise' which was made to the alleged victim. There is nothing on record to show that the opp. party no. 2 received Rs. 10 lacs from the brother of the appellant to resolve the matter. There is only one case prior to the present FIR filed by the opp. party no. 2 in the year 2016 against one Sonu wherein the cognizance was taken against him to face trial under section 323 I.P.C. only.
In the opinion of the court, the trial court on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer has rightly reached at the conclusion to frame charge against the appellant under the above mentioned sections, the order regarding framing of charge against the appellant under section 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is a well discussed, well founded order which does not suffer from any illegality, hence it needs no interference.
The impugned order dated 8.8.2022 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hathras is hereby confirmed.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 18.8.2023/Gss
