Single Judge criminal court dismissed Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of charge-sheet alleging sexual assault. Court held that evidence appreciation is for trial court and offence is made out.
Application for quashing of criminal proceedings is dismissed. Relief is refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10773 of 2019
Applicant :- Sandeep Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 26.8.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 618 of 2018 and proceedings of S.T. No. 362 of 2018 (State Vs. Purushottam Yadav and others), under Sections 354A, 323, 506 IPC and 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Khalilabad, District - Sant Kabir Nagar pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.-II, Sant Kabir Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that:-
(i) neither the applicant no.1 is named in the FIR nor his name has come in the statement of the victim, in fact, there is dispute between the family members of applicant no.2 and the informant, therefore, informant initiated the criminal proceedings on the false and concocted story.
(ii) the victim has given statement under pressure of her family members and FIR was lodged on 9.7.2018 against the applicant no.2 with the allegation that applicant no.2 outraged the modesty of the daughter of the informant.
(iii) the applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present incident.
(iv) No offence is made out against the applicants.
(v) The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that considering the material evidences and
allegations against the applicants on record, as on date, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as materials on record against the applicants, the criminal proceedings against the applicants cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no illegality in the impugned charge-sheet dated 26.8.2018. It is submitted that this application is liable to be dismissed.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, I find that in the FIR dated 9.7.2018 serious allegations levelled by the mother of the victim that the accused Purushottam Yadav/applicant no.2 alongwith her relative outraged the modesty of her daughter. On making resistance by the victim, aged about 14 years, she was assaulted by the accused persons and forced the her to sit in their vehicle, when they could not succeeded in their aforesaid act, then they dragged the victim in a shrubbery. On raising alarm by the victim, several other persons rushed there and saved her. The FIR has been lodged against the applicant no.2 and one unknown person, later on, the said unknown persons has been detected as applicant no.1.
This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sprangly, only in such a appropriate cases, where uncontroverted allegations made in FIR or charge-sheet and the evidence relied in support of same do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.
It is also well settled that at the stage of summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegation cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused.
In view of above, this Court does not find that this case fall in a categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicants in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. There is no manifest error of law in the impugned
charge-sheet dated 26.8.2018. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. Hence, criminal proceeding against the applicants is not liable to be quashed. The relief as claimed by the applicants through this application is refused.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed . Order Date :- 2.4.2019 AK Pandey
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is exercisable to quash the criminal proceedings against the applicants at this pre-trial stage.
Whether the allegations in the charge-sheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence against the applicants.
Whether the impugned criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandeep Yadav
Unknown Person (subsequently Sandeep Yadav)
Purushottam Yadav
Sanjay Kumar Singh
AK Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
