Ashok Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5838 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ashok Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 March, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33033
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 81
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 721 of 2025
 

 
Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Sharma
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Markandey Rai,Pradeep Kumar Rai,Sandeep Kumar Rai
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
 

 

1. Heard Sri P.K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Exclusive P.O.C.S.O. Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2023 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma) arising out of Case Crime No. 426 of 2022 of Police Station Transport Nagar, Meerut whereby, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 227/239 of Cr.P.C. for his discharge had been rejected.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that he is Chief Proctor of Jaswant Nagar Sugar Mill School, Maliyana. On 25.08.2002, student of Class IX, Ashu scuffled with Arun, a student of Class-VIII. The class teacher, Mr. Praveen provided information to the revisionist in respect of the aforesaid scuffle in between students and then he called upon both the students then it transpired that the scuffle in between two students was for a girl student. To resolve the aforesaid issue, the student, Ashu and the girl (victim) was called upon by the revisionist then Ashu told that the girl had given a paper-slip to him on which mobile number of her mother and 'I like you' was written. Ashu further told that he used to talk on the said mobile number and on that issue, scuffle took place in between him and Arun. On 27.08.2023, father of the girl called upon the Principle and Clerk of the school in his residence and there, the Principle advised to the father of the girl to be more careful on her. The father of the girl extended threat that he will lodge a criminal case in the matter.

4. It has further been contended on behalf of the revisionist that only just to put pressure on the school authorities, the father of the girl had lodged First Information Report against the revisionist. The father of the girl had lodged First Information Report bearing F.I.R. No. 0426 dated 3.09.2022 in Police Station Transport Nagar, District Meerut under Sections 354, 354 (A) I.P.C. and Sections 7 and 8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012. The father of the girl in the F.I.R. had levelled following allegations against the revisionist:

"नक़ल तहरीर हिंदी वादी........सेवा में, श्रीमान थानाध्यक्ष महोदय जी थाना टी.पी. नगर मेरठ श्रीमान जी निवेदन यह है कि प्रार्थी की नाबालिक पुत्री xxx उम्र 13 वर्ष जसवन्त शुगर मिल स्कूल मलियाना में कक्षा 8ए में पढ़ती है स्कूल का एक शिक्षक अशोक शर्मा प्रार्थी की पुत्री को कई दिनों से यह कहकर की तू मेरी जान है मैं तुझसे बहुत प्यार करता हूँ छेड़ता था तथा अपने पास जबरदस्ती ट्यूशन लगाने की बात करता था कि तू मेरे पास ट्यूशन लगा लेगी तो दोनो मजे करेंगे। जब यह बात प्रार्थी कि पुत्री ने अपनी मां शिवानी शर्मा को बतायी व शिवानी ने मुझ प्रार्थी को बतायी तो प्रार्थी को अधिक आज्ञात पहुँचा क्योंकि मास्टर अशोक शर्मा प्रार्थी की पुत्री के साथ कुछ भी गलत कर सकता था। स्वम दुष्कर्म कर सकता था प्रार्थी थाने में रिपोर्ट दर्ज कराने आया है। रिपोर्ट दर्ज कर कानूनी कार्यवाही करने की कृपा करें।"

5. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer during investigation had recorded statements of the witnesses and the girl under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statement of the girl had also been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

6. The Investigating Officer after collecting evidence completed his investigation and had submitted Charge-Sheet against the revisionist under Section 354(A) I.P.C. and Section 11(i)/12 of P.O.C.S.O. Act before the competent court. The revisionist filed an application for discharge under Section 227/239 of the Cr.P.C. but the said application had been rejected vide impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Exclusive POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2023.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that there is no evidence to connect the revisionist with the crime in question and he being Chief Proctor of the school was under obligation to maintain discipline amongst the students and in furtherance thereof, he called upon the students including the girl student and instructed them to be disciplined in the school. It has further been argued that father of the girl just to pressurize the revisionist had lodged an absolutely false case though no offence is made out against him.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that it is duty of the Chief Proctor to take steps to maintain discipline in the school therefore, if in the counter-blast any case has been lodged against him, he is entitled for discharge under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has relied upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1098 of 2024 (Nirmal Prem Kumar Vs. State) and has submitted that there is variance in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., therefore the revisionist is entitled for discharge. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has also relied upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal arising out of the SLP (Crl) No. 7887 of 2024 (B.V. Ram Kumar Vs. State of Telengana and others) and has submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgement had categorically held that if for maintaining discipline in the office, superior officer warns any employee, that does not constitute any offence therefore, the officer cannot be prosecuted. It has further been submitted that the revisionist being Chief Proctor of the School, had intervened in the incident and therefore no offence is made out against him and he cannot be prosecuted for the said incident.

10. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has argued that the Investigating Officer had collected sufficient evidence in respect of the offence committed by the revisionist and thereby, he had submitted Charge-Sheet against the revisionist before the competent court. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has further argued that once there is enough evidence against the revisionist to connect him with the crime in question, the trial court, at the stage of considering revisionist's application filed under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C., cannot weigh and scrutinize the evidence in detail at the stage of considering the plea of discharge, as on that stage only a prima-facie satisfaction is to be recorded.

11. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has vehemently argued that from bare perusal of the impugned order dated 21.01.2025, it clearly comes out that the trial court had considered the evidence available on record and had expressed its prima-facie satisfaction and thereby, had rejected the revisionist's application filed under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. therefore, there is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 and thus, the instant criminal revision filed by the revisionist is liable to be dismissed.

12. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed along with the revision.

13. The First Information Report had been lodged by the father of the victim-girl which had been registered on 3.09.2022 as F.I.R. No. 0426 under Sections 354, 354 (A) I.P.C. and Sections 7 and 8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012. The relevant portion of the F.I.R. is extracted as under:

"स्कूल का एक शिक्षक अशोक शर्मा प्रार्थी की पुत्री को कई दिनों से यह कहकर की तू मेरी जान है मैं तुझसे बहुत प्यार करता हूँ छेड़ता था तथा अपने पास जबरदस्ती ट्यूशन लगाने की बात करता था कि तू मेरे पास ट्यूशन लगा लेगी तो दोनो मजे करेंगे।"

14. The Investigating Officer during investigation had recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and further, the statement of the victim-girl had also been recorded. The relevant portion of the statement of the victim-girl, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., is extracted as under:

"XXXXXXXXX ने पूँछने पर बताया कि मेरा नाम XXXXX है। मैं होली चौक मलियाना मेरठ में रहती हूँ। मेरी उम्र लगभग 13 वर्ष है। मैं जसवन्त मिल्स इण्टर कालेज में कक्षा 8th (A) की छात्रा हूँ। कुछ समय पहले मैने एक पर्चा लिखकर मेरी Friend को दिया था जिसमे मेरी मम्मी का फोन नं० लिखा था। वह पर्चा मेरे अंग्रेजी अध्यापक अशोक शर्मा को मिल गया। बाद में उन्होंने मुझसे अकेले में कहा कि ये पर्चा मैं तेरी मम्मी पापा को दिखा दूंगा। वो तुझे मारे पीटेंगे और स्कूल नहीं भेजेंगे। अशोक शर्मा सर ने मुझे डरा दिया और कहने लगे तु मेरी जान है। मैं तुझसे बहुत प्यार करता हूँ। हम दोनों अच्छे दोस्त है। ये बात किसी को पता नहीं चलनी चाहिए दोपहर 2 बजे मेरे पास ट्यूशन लगा ले। अब वो तु जाने के ट्यूशन कैसे लगवानी है। लेकिन दो दिन मे तु मेरे पास ट्यूशन आनी चाहिए। ये सब लगभग 56 दिन तक चलता रहा। फिर मैंने सारी बात अपनी मम्मी को बता दी। मेरे मम्मी ने सारी बात मेरे पापा को बता दी। इसके बाद मेरे पापा ने थाने में रिपोर्ट कर दी।"

15. Later on, the statement of the victim-girl had been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Relevant portion of the statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is extracted as under:

"XXXXउम्र 13 वर्ष कक्षा 8वीं निवासी XXXXपीड़िता द्वारा कथन किया गया कि मैं बिना किसी दबाव के अपनी मर्जी से यह बयान दे रही हूँ कि आठ दस दिन पहले मैंने अपने दोस्त आशू को चिट पर अपनी मम्मी का नम्बर दिया था मैंने उसे बात करने के लिए नम्बर दिया था उस दिन तो ठीक बात कर रहा था उसके बाद मुझे परेशान करने लगा। मुझे सेटिंग करने को कहता था मेरी मम्मी को नहीं पता था कि मैं उससे बात करती हूँ जब वो सेटिंग करने वाली बात कहता था तब मैं कुछ नहीं कहती थी जब वो ज्यादा ही कहने लगा तो मैंने अपनी दोस्त आरूषी को बताया आरूषी ने अपने भाई अरूण को बताया था अरूण ने तीन चार लड़के लेकर आशु को स्कूल के बाहर पीट दिया। हमारे अशोक सर को पता चला अशोक सर को वह पर्ची मिल गयी जिस पर मैंने आशु को अपनी मम्मी का नम्बर दिया था। उसके बाद अशोक सर मुझे ब्लैकमेल करने लगे कि मैं तुझसे प्यार करता हूं तू मेरी जान है जबरदस्ती मेरा ट्यूशन अपने यहां लगवाना चाहते थे एक दो दिन कहने के बाद मैंने अपनी मम्मी को बताया फिर रिपोर्ट हुई सर मुझे ब्लैकमेल कर रहे थे मैंने बात सीधे अपनी मम्मी को बतायी थी जब भी सर क्लास के बाहर मिलते तो मेरे कान मे बोलते थे कि मैं तुझसे बहुत प्यार कहता हूँ हम दोनों अच्छे दोस्त है ये किसी को पता नहीं चलना चाहिये। यही मेरा बयान है। मुझे और नहीं कुछ कहना है। बयान पीड़िता के बतायेनुसार। बयान पढ़कर व सुनकर तसदीक किया।"

16. From perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and statements of the victim girl recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it is patently manifest that the girl had categorically assigned role to the revisionist in the crime in question and she had stated that the revisionist had used sexually offending language with her and further had tried to blackmail her.

17. This Court is of the view that at the stage of exercise of power by the trial court under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C., the trial court has to look into the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and if it is prima-facie satisfied that the offence is made out against the accused, the court would refuse to discharge the accused in exercise its power under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. This Court is also of the view that at the stage of considering the plea of discharge raised by the accused, the trial court is not under obligation to make a detailed scrutiny of the evidence and record a conclusive finding in respect of the alleged offences.

18. The trial court, in the impugned order dated 21.01.2025, had recorded a categorical finding that there is enough material collected by the Investigating Officer, on the basis of which the court is prima-facie satisfied that the offences are made out therefore, there is no occasion for complete discharge of the revisionist from the offences in question.

19. So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmal Prem Kumar (Supra) is concerned, this Court finds that the said matter reached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court after trial and appeal i.e. after the entire evidence was scrutinized in detail and on that basis, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had recorded a finding that if there is variance in the statements of victim that is to be taken into account whereas, in the case of the revisionist, it is at the stage of exercise of power under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. and the evidence collected by the prosecution has yet not been scrutinized in detail therefore, the revisionist cannot be granted any relief on the basis of the aforesaid judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist i.e. judgement rendered in the case of B.V. Ram Kumar (Supra) is also of no help to the revisionist as the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in respect of maintaining discipline in the office by a superior officer whereas, in the present case, the Investigating Officer had collected enough material against the revisionist in respect of his involvement in the offences punishable under Section 354A I.P.C. and Section 11(i)/12 of P.O.C.S.O. Act.

20. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find either any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Exclusive P.O.C.S.O. Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2023 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma).

21. Accordingly, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date:- 07.3.2025

A. Mandhani