Allahabad High Court
Abdul Hasan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238223
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35881 of 2023
Applicant :- Abdul Hasan And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 30.07.2022, cognizance order dated 14.11.2022 and proceedings of Case No. 1453 of 2022 arising out of case crime no. 62 of 2022, under Sections 323, 506 and 305 I.P.C., Police Station Saifni, District Rampur, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Judicial Magistrate-II), Rampur.
3. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the opposite party no. 2 Waseem lodged F.I.R. on 25.05.2022 against Sartaj son of Abdul Hasan (applicant no. 1) for the offence under Sections 452, 376(3), 506, 306 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4(2) POCSO Act alleging inter alia that his sister was alone in the house on Sunday. His mother had gone outside the house to collect fodder. The accused Sartaj seeing his sister alone barged into his house and forcibly committed rape/misdeed with her. On screaming of his sister, Sartaj extending threat to her ran away. When his mother came back, his sister narrated the incident. F.I.R. also alleges that when they were going to lodge F.I.R., the accused persons mounted pressure for compromise. On 25.05.2022 at 5.00 P.M. his sister has committed suicide by strangulating herself due to disgrace in society and stigma. After culmination of investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet dated 30.07.2022 against Sartaj under Sections 452, 376(3), 506, 305 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 POCSO Act, against Abdul Hasan and Dile Hasan under Sections 323, 506, 305 I.P.C. In the charge-sheet it is also mentioned that the co-accused Shahrukh son of Abdul Hasan was absconding and later on, he has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.07.2022. The charge-sheet under Sections 323, 506, 305 I.P.C. was also submitted against Shahrukh. On the said charge-sheet, concerned court below took cognizance and summoned them vide order dated 14.11.2022.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are not named in the F.I.R. Their complicity came into light during investigation. Neither first informant nor his family members have sustained any injury. The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicants. Allegations against the applicants are false. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment in the case of Mohit Singhal and another Vs. State of Uttrakhand and others, 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 1189.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that during investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of informant Waseem, Smt. Bano (mother of victim), Mohd. Fareed and Smt. Shahista, in which they reiterating the prosecution case also stated that a panchayat also took place in the village regarding this incident in presence of several persons of the society, in which victim's family had put a condition that in case Sartaj, who has committed rape, marries the victim, they will not take any action in the matter but the applicants and co-accused Shahrukh were not ready for marriage of Sartaj with the victim and they mounted undue pressure upon the informant to hush up the matter somehow. When no solution found from the panchayat, the victim committed suicide. It is also submitted that upon perusal of F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein as well as material against the applicants, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. The criminal proceedings against the applicants cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having examined the matter in its totality, I find that the allegation of rape has been assigned to co-accused Sartaj. Though the applicants are not named in the F.I.R. but their involvement came into light during investigation in the statement of prosecution witnesses as noted above. As per the prosecution case when proposal of the victim's family for marriage of the victim with Sartaj has been flatly refused by the applicants and co-accused Shahrukh mounting pressure upon the victim's family to make compromise without solemnizing marriage of victim with the co-accused Sartaj, then she committed suicide due to fear of her disgrace in the society. As such, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants who were involved in creating a circumstance which compelled the victim to commit suicide. So far as judgment in the matter of Mohit Singhal (supra) relied upon on behalf of the accused is concerned, same is not helpful to the applicants as the said judgment is distinguishable on the facts of this case. It is well settled that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference in the facts of two cases may alter the entire aspects of the matter. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is well settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage, which can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage. At the stage of taking cognizance of the case and summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused.
7. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicants in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. At this stage it would not be appropriate to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.
8. The relief as sought by the applicants through the instant application is hereby refused.
9. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.12.2023
Kashifa
