Dismissed

Subham Singh @ Chikki and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2020A482/47637/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused to quash charge-sheet and cognizance order in rape and POCSO cases. Held that prima facie offence is disclosed and disputed facts cannot be adjudicated. Directed consideration of bail if applicants surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash of charge-sheet and cognizance order refused. Bail to be considered if applicants surrender.

Subham Singh @ Chikki and Another Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47637 of 2019 Applicant :- Subham Singh @ Chikki And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh,Brij Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the Charge-Sheet dated 15.12.2018 and cognizance order dated 05.04.2019 against the applicant no.1 including further proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No. 202 of 2019 - (State Vs. Shubham Singh & Others) and also to quash the Charge-Sheet dated 10.08.2019 and cognizance order dated 28.08.2019 against the applicant no. 2 arising out of Case Crime No. 0039 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 120-B, 342 I.P.C and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Pakdi, District - Ballia, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge1st, Ballia.

¶6

As per the allegation made in the F.I.R, it is alleged that on 29.05.2018 at about 10:00 a.m., the victim went to her college to take the result of Intermediate Examination2018 but did not return till evening. It is stated that on 29.05.2018, when the victim was returning, co-accused Neeraj Singh, Subham Singh and Indrajit committed rape upon the victim. The victim is said to have been abducted on 30.06.2018 and when she reached at her house, she disclosed the incident that while she was returning back from her school, she was abducted by the applicants, who had committed rape upon her by administering some intoxicating substance to her. It is also stated that other co-accused persons Neeraj Singh and Subham Singh have also committed rape upon her. During the course of investigation, statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, in which, she has also stated that the applicants committed rape upon her.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation,

¶8

no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned charge-sheet and cognizance order cannot be quashed.

¶10

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet and cognizance order is therefore refused.

¶12

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, thier prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 03.01.2020. Vinod.

Subham Singh @ Chikki and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subham Singh @ Chikki and Another 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

Junaid Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shankar and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Idrees Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saudani Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saleem Vs State of U.P. and Another