Saurabh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1433 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 68
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35298 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Saurabh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ronak Chaturvedi
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (PoCSO Act)/Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh passed upon protest petition moved by opposite party no. 2 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 413 of 2022 (Raju Khan Vs Saurabh) arising out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2021, under SEctions 323, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh.

It is contended that initially an FIR has been lodged against the applicant and two unknown persons under Section 323, 376D IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and after investigation final report in the matter was filed on 26.2.2021. Thereafter on protest filed by opposite party no. 2, whereupon the court below rejected the final report and taken cognizance against the applicant under said sections vide order dated 26.09.2022.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.

From the perusal of 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 relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as cognizance order is refused.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicant in view of the judgment in the case Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicant approaches the trial court for bail, same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the court below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).

As such application has no force and is accordingly disposed of.

Order Date :- 13.1.2023

RavindraKSingh