Rakesh Kumar Katheriya vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9501 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rakesh Kumar Katheriya vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 22 April, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59438
 
Reserved on: 16.04.2025
 
Delivered on: 22.04.2025
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34434 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Katheriya
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Girijesh Kumar Gupta
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Girijesh Kumar Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Girijesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This Court on 22.01.2025 had issued notice upon O.P. No.4. There is an office report dated 06.03.2025 that no such person as Respondent No.4 is resident of the said village. Thereafter this Court proceeded to pass an order dated 18.03.2025 pursuant whereto there is an office dated 07.04.2025 that the notice has been served upon Respondent No.4 through its heir.

3. Till the dictation of the order, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of O.P. No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as counsel appearing for the State have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. 

5. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

6. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by the complainant/ O.P. No.4 on 26.05.2023 under Section 156(3) of CrPC against the applicant with an allegation that on 01.11.2022 at about 8 in the night, the minor daughter of O.P. No.2, aged about 16 years 10 months was all alone in the house and at that point of time, the applicant came to the house of the complainant/ O.P. No.2 and asked about the whereabouts of the complainant/ O.P. No.2 and when the victim told the applicant that the O.P. no.2 had gone to Kanpur, then the applicant started molesting the victim in order to outrage her modestyui and exhibited an indecent conduct, pursuant whereto the victim screamed and made noises and in order to overcome the same, the applicant had put his hand on the mouth of the victim and started beating while threatening that he would break the hands and legs and at that point of time, one of the cousins of the victim came and after arrival of the cousin of the victim, the applicant ran away. 

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that entire allegation sought to be leveled are totally false and incorrect and they have been made basis for inflicting criminality upon the applicant. According to the applicant, there happens to be a complaint lodged in the IGRS Portal  and police investigated the matter, wherein it was found that the applicant, who happens to be the Gram Pradhan, was subjected to hurling of abuses and the entire attempt was made on behalf of O.P. No.2/complainant to somehow rope in and entangle the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that a complete procedure has been provided under Section 156 read with Section 154 of CrPC corresponding provisions being Sections 175(3) and 173 of Bhartiya Nyay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, whereby before the complainant chooses to adopt remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC, it is mandatory for him to exhaust remedies  under Sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 154 of CrPC and a specific averment has to be made in the complaint. Submission is that in the present case, no such exercise was undertaken by the complainant/ O.P. No.2. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and others Vs. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 87 and Ranjeet Bath Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2025) 0 SCC 522. In nutshell, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated and roped in and the entire case has been set up in such a manner so as to tailor the witnesses so as to inflict criminality. Additionally, it is submitted that the summoning order has been passed in mechanical manner without there being any application of mind.

8. Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer has supported the summoning order and according to him, the court below while summoning the applicant has considered each and every aspect of the matter while considering complaint and the depositions made under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC. He submits that merely on asking the proceedings cannot be throttled at this stage, particularly when whatever arguments are being made, they are the defenses and further there is no jurisdictional error.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned State Law Officer for the State.

10. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention in the present proceeding at this stage. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged by the complainant/O.P. No.2 on 26.05.2023 against the applicant referable to the commission of offences on 01.11.2022 at 8 in the night, when the victim was all alone in the house and the applicant came into her house and asked about the whereabouts of the complainant/opposite party and thereafter committed the offences under Section 354 IPC read with Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. The presence of the applicant in the house of complainant / opposite party no.2 stood noticed by one of the cousins of the victim and when confronted, the applicant proceeded to flee. The narration and the sequence of the events which finds recital in the complaint dated 26.05.2023 itself shows that the victim had written a letter to the police for lodging of the FIR, but it was not lodged. Thereafter on 03.11.2022, a complaint was made to the S.S.P., Kanpur Dehat, whereat the Sub-Inspector assured that investigation would be proceeded with. A letter is also stated to have been written to the Chief Minister on 05.11.2022 and thereafter, police constables came to the house of the complainant/opposite party and suggested for compromise in lieu of Rs.20,000/-. On 05.11.2022, again a complaint was written to the Chief Minister that the Police would prepare a false report and hush up the matter. On 07.11.2022, an email and a letter was also to the Superintendent of Police and on 11.11.2022, again a letter was sent to the Director General of Police, Lucknow and National Women Commission. Since the things were not moving as required, so the proceedings under Right to Information Act 2005 were also initiated and in the meantime, National Women Commission directed the S.P. to lodge FIR and thereafter the complainant and the victim were called and told that their statements will be recorded and proceedings will be done and now, the complaint has been filed. The narration of the said events itself demonstrates that the complainant/opposite party no.2 as well as the victim were running from pillar to post for lodging of the complaint and it is not a case wherein directly the complaint was preferred under Section 156(3) of CrPC as prior to it, necessary exercise was undertaken at the end of the opposite party no.2.

11. Now the next question which arises for determination is whether there was adequate material available before the Magistrate for summoning the applicant. For the purposes of taking a decision either to summon the accused or not, what is relevant is the complaint and the depositions under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC. Here in the present case, the complaint alleges the commission of the offences and the same stand corroborated from the statements of the first informant under Section 202 CrPC, the cousin of the victim Indal Singh and one of the independent witness being Shiv Karan. From the statements of the witnesses under Section 200 & 202 CrPC, it appears from the record that there is no inconsistency or variance. The witnesses support the contentions contained in the complaint.

12. Apart from the same, Section 29 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 itself provides for presumption as to certain offences. According to which, where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Section 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed, or abetted or attempted to commit the offence as the case may be, unless the contrary proved. The words employed in Section 29 "unless the contrary proved" is of paramount importance, as it signifies holding of a Trial for proving otherwise.

13. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shafia Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of U.P. an another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 153 had the occasion to consider the ambit and extent of the judicial intervention while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, it was observed as under:-

"15. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extra­ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra) as under :

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

16. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others."

14. Looking into the present case from all the four-angles, this Court finds that the present case does not fall in exceptional category and thus, there is no reason to interfere with the proceeding.

15. Accordingly the application is rejected.

Order Date :- 22.04.2025

N.S.Rathour

(Vikas Budhwar, J)