Upendra Pradhan @ Akhilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Court No. - 66

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36909 of 2019

Applicant :- Upendra Pradhan @ Akhilesh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bal Krishna Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dilip Kumar, holding brief of Sri Bal Krishna Rai, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding including charge sheet dated 24.05.2019 and order taking cognizance dated 20.08.2019 in S.T. No.68 of 2019 (State Versus Upendra Pradhan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.63 of 2019 under Sections 452, 376D I.P.C., 3/4 of POCSO Act and 3(1)(W) (ii) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Chakia, District Chandauli, pending in the court of Additional District Judge-I, Chandauli.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of political rivalry of village. He has not committed any offence whatsoever. It has been argued that there is no allegation of commission of rape by the applicant upon the victim in the F.I.R. and her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, material improvement has been made by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which it is stated that she is aged about 15 years and about two weeks' back the applicant and co-accused,Ankit Maurya barged her house when she was sleeping and the applicant pressed her mouth and co-accused, Ankit took her clothes off and committed rape. It is alleged that while rape was being committed by co-accused, Ankit, the applicant remained present and had assisted him in commission of rape by pressing her mouth due to which she could not raise any alarm.Thus, in view of material improvement made by the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., apparently it appears that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that after submission of chargesheet, the parties have entered into compromise and in this behalf compromise deed bearing signatures of applicant and opposite party no.2 and the victim has been filed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit and he has referred to paras 2, 3 and 4 of the affidavit in which opposite party no.2 and the victim have not

¶8

levelled any allegation so far as the applicant is concerned. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in Narendra Singh & others vs. State of Punjab and another 2014 LawSuit(SC) 202 . Para 31 (iii) of the said judgement is quoted as under:-

¶9

"Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender."

¶10

The Apex Court has categorically observed that prosecutions involving serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity which are not private in nature and have serious impact on the society cannot be quashed even on the basis of compromise. The aforesaid judgement in stead of helping the applicant has observations which are totally against the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. Thus the proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶11

I may further record that bare reading of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. though specific allegation has been made against co-accused, Ankit Maurya, however, there is allegation of taking active part and assisting co-accused Ankit Maurya which amounts to commission of gang-rape in view of provisions of Section 376-D I.P.C. In my opinion, prima facie, offence against the applicant is made out.No case of interference is called for and on the basis of the compromise between the applicant and the victim the proceeding cannot be quashed.

¶12

In view of aforesaid, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is bereft of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to court concerned within two weeks. The court below is directed to proceed against the accused persons in accordance with law and decide the trial of aforesaid case as expeditiously as possible. Order Date :- 6.1.2020 MN/-

Upendra Pradhan @ Akhilesh Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Pradhan @ Akhilesh Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monu Alias Vivek Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Samina Begum and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Sajid @ Pappu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehdi Hasan and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Pal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kesh Kumar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another