Allahabad High Court
Anis vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176122
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26449 of 2025
Anis
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Brijesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Sheeba Rizvi
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sheeba Rizvi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA.
2. The present application has been preferred challenging chargesheet no.0017 of 2025 dated 28.03.2025 arising out of Case crime no.149 of 2024, under Section 74 of B.N.S and Section 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Bhot District Rampur as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 25.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Rampur and the entire proceedings of pending Special Case No.59 of 2025 (State vs. Imran and others) pending before Special Judge (POCSO Act), Rampur against the applicant only.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant relief upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PXXX vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in 2022 LawSuit (SC) 734 wherein it has been held that the offence under Section 376 IPC as alleged committed at Delhi being different and distinct than the other offences and being not of same transaction could not have tried by the courts at Chamoli.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the offence whatsoever has been referred through chargesheet after conducting detailed investigation wherein it has been found that implication of applicant in pursuance to Section 74 of BNSS and Section 7/8 POCSO Act committed at district Gurugram specifically in respect of the applicant and as such summoning order passed by learned court concerned vide order dated 25.4.2025 is highly illegal.
5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 alongwith learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made through the instant application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 further submitted that whatsoever the offence which has been referred through chargesheet whereupon the applicant has been implicated is a continuance of offence which has been initiated from Rampur and till the arrival of the victim at Moradabad and the entire investigation whatsoever has been conducted by the concerned Investigating Officer is only in pursuance to case crime no.0149 of 2024 wherein the father of the victim is the informant.
6. Learned AGA seconded the arguments raised by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and nothing more has been substantiated with the same.
7. After hearing rival submissions extended by the learned counsel for the parties, the arguments so raised by learned counsel for the applicant, if taken into consideration for implication of different persons through chargesheet, a different cause of action will have the different territorial jurisdiction such as Rampur, Gurugram, Moradabad etc, and as per the trite law which is enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the cognizence of offence cannot be taken into in a peace meal, so far as the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, the same is not at all admitted that in sequence of offence which has been initiated from District Rampur on certain specific dates the offence committed by certain specific accused, separate First Information Report has to be preferred at the behest of victim/informant and a separate investigation report was to be submitted by some another Investigating Officer which might be initiated from the District of Gurugram (Haryana) in pursuance to Section 199 BNSS.
8. In the instant matter once the First Information Report has been lodged at the behest of information submitted by father of the victim that has never been disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the victim is a resident of District Rampur and once she has been found missing and as per the available knowledge of the father of the victim, he preferred information which has been registered as Case Crime No. 0149 of 2024 and as such the same cannot be possible either by the father of the victim or by the victim herself to prefer separate First Information Report at District Gurugram once its factually crystal clear that victim was being captured as a hostage and she was not residing with her free will and as such there was hardly any circumstances available with the victim to lodge separate and distinct F.I.R. against the applicant.
9. So far as regarding the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in P XXX (Supra) wherein the series of acts as alleged in the case which is not at all connected together, as to form the same transaction, but in the instant matter it is the continuous series of fact, since no specific other offence related to the victim as discussed in the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant wherein the implication of the accused were in reference to Section 376 IPC and the same was committed at Delhi but in the instant matter the victim was away from her native place which was not available in the knowledge of the informant and once the investigation has been conducted the entire series has been started from District Rampur to District Moradabad and victim has been recovered from Moradabad and as such this connected series cannot be break into separate case crime registered at separate district and may not be culminated into separate trial.
10. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the case relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the instant matter and as such the prayer sought through the instant application cannot be acceded.
11. Application stands dismissed.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
October 6, 2025
Rakesh
