Allahabad High Court
Satendra Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 November, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:175808
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25555 of 2024
Applicant :- Satendra Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- J Shubham,Jitendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge sheet no.354/23 dated 08.12.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 12.01.2024 and entire criminal proceeding of Case No.1083 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Satendra Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.313 of 2023, for offence under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant no.1 and for offence under Sections 379, 506, 120-B I.P.C. against applicant nos.2&3, Police Station-Kotwali Farrukhabad, District-Farrukhabad.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the informant along with his cousin Gulabi, Chanchal as well as one resident of aunt's village namely, Satendra, on 23.07.2022 went to Jaipur. They returned on 26.07.2022 to Mainpuri. Informant's aunt requested Satendra to leave Kiran at Farrukhabad. When they reached Farrukhabad, as it was night, they, on the request of Satendra went to stay in a Hotel, namely, Surya Hotel at Farrukhabad. In the night Satendra forcefully committed rape upon Kiran and made a video of the aforesaid act. Showing the video he threatened Kiran that she should maintain relationship or he would make the video viral. After that on 06.08.2022 as well as 12.08.2022, he came to her house and established illicit relationship. On 02.01.2022 as well as on 23.10.2022 at Hotel Anand, Railway Road, Farrukhabad and on 25.10.2022 and on 25.12.2022 again at the same Hotel, after threatening her, called her and established illicit relationship with her. After being fed up of the aforesaid act of Satendra, when victim said that she will commit suicide, Satendra promised to marry her. During this period of relationship which was forcefully established by Satendra with the victim, she got pregnant twice and the pregnancy was forcefully terminated by giving medicine to her. On 19.04.2022 at about 11 AM, Satendra took her to Gudgaon Devi Mandir where there was a fight between two because of forceful relationship which was established by Satendra due to which she had become pregnant. Satendra after promising her to marry and establishing illicit forceful physical relationship has denied to marry. He also threatened that in case she disclose about the same to anyone or police personnel she will not be in a position to face the society as he had objectionable video and photographs of the victim, which he threatened to make viral. Both the persons were called by the police at police station where the entire incident was narrated by the victim, on which Satendra because of fear before the police personnel stated that he was ready to marry her. He requested for 15 days time to convince his family members for marriage with Kiran. In the morning of 20.04.2023, she got a phone call from Satendra and he said that if she wants to get married, then she should tell her father to arrange for Rs. 25,00,000/-. Conspiring with Chanchal and one of his friends, Satendra obtained all the evidence of his so-called marriage with Kiran and other photographs of Satendra with Kiran and destroyed the evidence. Information about the same was given to the police on 24.04.2023 by herself moving an application. Other details that how Kiran has been harassed by Satendra with the help and assistance of others have been detailed in the FIR. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the aforesaid persons on 08.12.2023, after which applicants have been summoned on 12.01.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR has been lodged after delay of nearly one year without giving any plausible explanation for the same. An application has been moved on 24.04.2023 before the police authority and FIR has been lodged on 06.07.2023 i.e. after four months from the date of application as moved by the opposite party no.2. He further submits that no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out as there was no intention to cheat from the very beginning and no false promise to marry the victim has been given by the applicant no.1. In support of his submission, he has relied upon judgement of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1405. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length.
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand submits that from the version of the FIR as well as statements of witnesses, the offence under the relevant section is made out against the applicants. He further submits that husband had obtained consent for sexual relationship by making false promise of marriage, therefore, such consent was given under some misconception of fact and amounted to rape. The aforesaid has been held in the case of Harshvardhan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2021 SCC Online All 500. The family members also helped the husband in cheating the opposite party no.2 as from the very inception the husband had no intention to marry, however, has established physical relationship by making false promise taking consent for the same which amounts to rape and the other family members have also not objected to such a conduct of the husband. Relying upon another case of Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 (13) SCC 1, learned AGA submits that the consent of opposite party no.2 was based on misconception, such consent is immaterial as it is not voluntary consent, therefore, offence under the relevant section is made out. He further submits that from the version of the FIR as well as statements of witnesses it is clear that from the very inception, the consent of opposite party no.2 was result of false promise to marry, which cannot be taken as consent and hence, the act as done by husband amounts to rape. As the family members have not objected to such a conduct of the husband they are also involved in the offence along with husband applicant no.1. He further submits that all the other contentions relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
7. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45,
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly
(ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
9. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 08.12.2023, summoning order dated 12.01.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.
10. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 7.11.2024
Rahul.
