The High Court refused an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and cognizance order in a POSCO case involving sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO, holding no merit in the prayer for interference.
Application for quashing of charge-sheet and cognizance order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41352 of 2019
Applicant :- Muieya @ Amarnath Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aradhana Singh,Bhawna Verma,Siya Ram Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the Charge-sheet No.194 of 2019 dated 21.6.2019 and cognizance order dated 24.6.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of S.T. No.747 of 2019 (earlier FNo.SST/5012/19, UPKN 01-007656-2019) (State vs. Muieya @ Amarnath), arising out of Case Crime No.152 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Maharajpur, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kanpur Nagar.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is wholly innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the medical examination, the prosecutrix is aged about 18 years. The first information report was lodged under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and during investigation Section 3/4 POCSO Act was added. The applicant surrendered before the court and applied for bail and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Kanpur Nagar considering the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix granted bail to the applicant vide order dated 17.6.2019 mainly on the ground that no allegation has been made by the prosecutrix in both the statements which have been quoted in his order. Learned counsel states that since in the medical report hymen of the prosecutrix was found ruptured and as per the school record she is major, Section 376 I.P.C. is added in the present case. The applicant has already been enlarged on bail under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, therefore, he may be permitted to file fresh bail bonds in the added Section.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. strongly opposed the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet and cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings against the applicant.
I do not find any merit in the application which may warrant any interference by this Court in the exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.
The prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet and Non-bailableWarrant as well as the entire proceedings is, hereby, refused.
In my opinion, it would be appropriate that if the applicant appears or surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his 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.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.11.2019 Vikas
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. warrants interference to quash the charge-sheet and cognizance order in a POCSO case involving minor aggravating circumstances.
Whether the absence of allegations against the applicant in the FIR or medical statements justifies quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
2004 (57) ALR 290 Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Muieya @ Amarnath
State of U.P.
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
