Dismissed

Om Prakash Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2020A482/4874/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of summoning orders in a rape trial, the Single Judge held that the medical evidence corroborating injuries within one day of the alleged incident established a prima facie case. The petition was dismissed with a direction for expedited bail consideration upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; prayer for bail consideration directed to be decided expeditiously within 30 days of surrender.

Om Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4874 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Om Prakash Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devottam Pandey,Abhishek Narayan Pandey,Rajiv Lochan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Sri Sunil Kumar Singh and Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel jointly filed Vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. No. 2, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ballia in criminal revision no. 190 of 2019 (Om Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as impugned order dated 17.9.2019 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Ist, Ballia in Complaint Case No. 25 of 2017 (Smt. Ranu Chaubey Vs. Om Prakash Tiwari) under section 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC, P.S. Bansdeeh Road, District Ballia.

¶8

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that O.P. No. 2 moved an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to lodge the FIR. The same was treated as complaint and on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicant was summoned under section 323, 504, 506 and 354A IPC vide order dated 19.4.2017. The applicant filed a criminal revision no. 112 of 2017 against the summoning order dated 19.4.2017. The O.P. No. 2 has also filed a criminal revision no. 70 of 2017 against the order dated 19.4.2017. The above both the criminal revisions were allowed by the lower revisional court and the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate concerned to pass a fresh order after hearing both the parties. It has further been submitted that a petition Under Article 227 No. 2768 of 2019 was filed by O.P. No. 2 which was disposed of by another bench of this court vide order dated 18.5.2019. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has passed fresh order on 17.9.2019 and summoned the applicant to face trial under section 323, 504, 506 and 376 IPC. It has further been submitted that as per complaint version the husband of O.P. No. 2 also reached on spot but he has not been examined under section 202 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that

¶9

O.P. No. 2 is aged about 48 years. There are two daughters of O.P. No. 2 aged about 21 and 19 years. The O.P. No. 2 herself got medically examined. She moved an application to the C.M.O. concerned in which she has not disclosed the fact of rape. In the said application she has made simple allegation of marpit. It has further been submitted that there is litigation in between the applicant and husband of O.P. No. 2. It has further been submitted that two criminal cases were lodged by the applicant against the husband of O.P. No. 2 prior to the alleged incident due to which the O.P. No. 2 has falsely implicated the applicant in the present case. It has further been submitted that prior to the alleged incident the O.P. No. 2 has also filed a complaint against several persons making allegation of molestation. In that case the O.P. No. 2 herself moved an application that she has filed false complaint. It has further been submitted that offence under section 376 IPC is not made out against the applicant. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.

¶10

On the other hand; learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. argued that O.P. No. 2 in her complaint as well as in her statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. has made specific allegation of rape against the applicant. It has further been argued that the applicant was summoned under section 323, 504, 506, 354A IPC vide order dated 19.4.2017 against which the O.P. No. 2 has filed criminal revision which was allowed by the lower revisional court and matter was remanded back to the court concerned, thereafter, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 17.9.2019. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order dated 17.9.2019. It has further been argued that applicant has preferred a criminal revision against the summoning order dated 17.9.2019 which was dismissed by the lower revisional court vide order dated 17.12.2019. There is no ground to quash the impugned orders of courts below.

¶11

A perusal of record shows that initially an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by O.P. No. 2 which was treated as complaint and on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses the applicant has been summoned to face trial under section 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC vide order dated 17.9.2019. In complaint the O.P. No. 2 has made allegation of rape against the applicant. The O.P. No. 2 in her statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. she has supported the complaint version and has also made allegation of rape against the applicant. The O.P. No. 2 was medically examined on 2.12.2016. At the time of medical examination 4 injuries were found on her person and the duration of injuries has been shown one day old. The incident is said to have taken place on

¶12

1.12.2016 at about 9:00 p.m. The O.P. No. 2/victim in her complaint as well as in her statement has made allegation of rape against the applicant. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order dated 17.9.2019 as well as the judgment and order of revisional court dated 17.12.2019. The learned Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima face case and it can not be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 as well as order dated 17.9.2019 passed in the aforementioned cases, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶14

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.2.2020 Masarrat

Om Prakash Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Tiwari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Nath and Anr. Vs Smt. Bhawana

Somesh Pathak and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Darshan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Abad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Yatendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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