Dismissed

Vijay Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2019A482/27741/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused the applicant's petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving alleged sexual offenses against a minor. Finding disputed facts, the court directed the trial court to commit the case expeditiously and the applicant to move a discharge application post-committal.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing proceedings is refused. The trial court is instructed to commit the case expeditiously; the accused to move a discharge application thereafter.

Vijay Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27741 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

The Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of S.T. No. 135/2019 in connection with Case Crime No. 328 of 2018, Under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ghughali, District Maharajganj.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has clearly stated that she had gone with the accused applicant of her own free will yet false case has been lodged against the applicant by her mother. He has also drawn attention to the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., annexed at page no. 48 in which she has stated that she is 18 years old and wants to marry the accused applicant. She had established physical relationship with the accused of her own free will and both of them had married also. It is also argued that the victim has refused to get herself medically examined, hence radiological age of the victim could not be determined, therefore charge-sheet needs to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of quashing and has argued that according to the F.I.R., the victim is a 16 years old girl who has been enticed away by the accused applicant and, thereafter physical relationship has been established with her forcibly against her wish therefore, the offence would fall under definition of rape, therefore quashing of the same should be refused.

¶9

I have gone through the F.I.R. wherein it is mentioned by mother of the victim that age of the victim is 16 years and in order to marry her, the accused had enticed her away on 25.11.2018 in the night at about 10:00 p.m. from her house. After the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted under the afore-mentioned sections. The evidence gathered by I.O. cannot be scrutinized in the proceedings under Section 482

¶10

Cr.P.C.

¶11

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9 . The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has apprised the Court that the accused has got himself bailed out. Therefore, the trial court is instructed to commit the case of the accused expeditiously before the court of Sessions and after its committal, discharge application may be moved by the accused applicant which would be disposed in accordance with law.

¶14

With the aforesaid direction, this Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.7.2019 A. Mandhani

Vijay Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Zuber and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babbu Mishra Alias Suresh Chandra Mishra Vs State of Up and Another

Siddheshwar Banerjee and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Laxmina Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Another

Kamlesh Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and Another