Partly allowed

Raju @ Rajesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2019A482/40401/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this S. 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order alleging rape and assault, the High Court refused to quash the proceedings but stayed coercive action for 30 days pending a bail application if the applicants surrender.

What did the court decide?

Refusal to quash charge sheet; stay of coercive action for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

Raju @ Rajesh and 2 Others Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40401 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Raju @ Rajesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bheshaj Puri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 5.5.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 405 of 2017 under section 452, 354, 323 IPC and its cognizance order dated 27.8.2019 in Criminal Case No. 348 of 2019 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bisauli.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that from the side of applicants an NCR No. 230 of 2014 dated 29.7.2014 was registered against the O.P. No. 2 under section 323, 504 IPC. After sometime the matter was compromised and the police submitted final report in that case. A protest petition was filed which was treated as complaint and thereafter, on the basis of statements recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the O.P. No. 2 and 2 others were summoned to face trial vide order dated 5.3.2016. In counter blast the O.P. No. 2 filed an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 30.8.2014 which was dismissed by the court below. Thereafter, two complaints were filed on behalf of O.P. No. 2. One was dismissed due to non appearance of O.P. No. 2 and the another complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the O.P. No. 2 has lodged this false FIR against the applicants. In fact, no offence is made out against the applicants. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.

¶8

On the other hand; learned A.G.A. argued that O.P. No. 2 in her FIR it has mentioned that on 27.8.2017 the applicants entered into her house and committed marpit with her and also outraged her modesty. The victim in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has also supported the prosecution version. The I.O. after concluding investigation has submitted chargesheet against the applicants. There is no ground to quash the charge-sheet of the aforementioned case as well as cognizance order dated 27.8.2019.

¶9

A perusal of the record shows that the FIR has been lodged by

¶10

O.P. No. 2 in which she has made allegation against the applicants for committing marpit with her. In FIR it has also been mentioned that applicants have outraged her modesty. The I.O. after collecting evidence has submitted charge-sheet against the applicants.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the charge-sheet as well as cognizance order dated 27.8.2019 in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶12

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.11.2019 Masarrat

Raju @ Rajesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Rajesh and 2 Others 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

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Bharat Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nitin Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Gahan Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another