Disposed

Kunwar Singh (Wrongly Mentioned Sen) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2020A482/6999/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant withdrew the challenge to criminal proceedings regarding rape and POCSO charges. The court refused the prayer to quash proceedings but directed that if the applicant appears before the lower court within 45 days to apply for bail, it must be heard expeditiously, with no coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Protection from coercive action for 45 days or until appearance; direction for expedited hearing of bail application if filed upon appearance.

Kunwar Singh (Wrongly Mentioned Sen) Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6999 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Kunwar Singh (Wrongly Mentioned Sen) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Siddharth Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge-sheet no. 1 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 222 of 2018 and proceedings of Special Case No. 28 of 2019 (State Vs. Kunwar Sen), under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bakewar, District - Etawah pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/1st Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah.

¶7

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant and victim were living in relationship since 25.02.2018 and on 7.3.2018 they have solemnized their marriage. Thereafter, FIR was lodged on 15.03.2018 by the opposite party no.2 (father of victim) on the false and concocted facts because at that time parents of victim were not ready to accept the relation of victim with applicant. Thereafter, on 12.04.2018 victim was recovered and she in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not support the prosecution case, but supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. under the pressure of her parents. It is also pointed out that after registration of FIR and before recovery of victim, a child was also borne on 31.03.2019 from their wedlock and at present they are living together as husband and wife, therefore, impugned criminal proceedings against the applicant is abuse of the process of the Court.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer by contending that the offence of rape cannot be permitted to be compounded as it is an offence against the society at large.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2/informant supported the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant.

¶10

After advancing certain arguments at some length by the learned counsel for the applicant, when the Court put certain query to him, he gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned criminal proceedings against the applicant and confined his submission requesting to grant some protection to the applicant to surrender before the concerned court below. The learned counsel for the applicant further stated at the Bar that he is not pressing any other prayer made in this application on merits and prayed that a direction may be issued to the concerned courts below to consider and decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶11

In view of above, the relief as sought by the applicant in the instant application is refused .

¶12

Considering the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case applicant appears before the concerned court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law keeping in view of the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755 as well as judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437 .

¶13

For the period of 45 days from today or till the date of appearance of the applicant before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the above case.

¶14

With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.2.2020 AK Pandey

Kunwar Singh (Wrongly Mentioned Sen) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunwar Singh (Wrongly Mentioned Sen) 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

Suraj Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Netra Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarvesh and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Rajendra Kumar Chhabara Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hemlata and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another