The High Court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge sheet in a case involving child enticement and sexual molestation, holding that prima facie offences were made out.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejected; charge sheet and cognizance order not quashed.
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. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15032 of 2020
Applicant :- Gajendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 21.07.2019 as well as its cognizance order dated 30.08.2019 in Case No. 63 of 2019 (State Vs. Gajendra and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 0176 of 2019, Under Section 363, 366, 342, 344, 354, 506 I.P.C. & 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Sadabad Kotwali, District- Hathras.
Brief facts of the case is that F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant's mother against the applicants on 30.04.2019 at about 15:30 hours under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. alleging therein that applicant accused person enticed away her minor girl from her custody .
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further argues that no offence is disclosed against the applicants and present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purpose of harassment.
Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.1 vehemently opposed the prayer and contended that in view of the allegation made in the F.I.R. and material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants.
The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:-
In the case of Monica Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 781 it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.
In State of Orissa Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540 it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analyzed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance.
The occurrence is said to be on 30.04.2019 and in High School Certificate, age of the victim is mentioned as 20.12.2001. At the time of the occurrence victim was below 18 years. In the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., victim has supported the prosecution version and has given her statement against the applicant-accused persons. Investigating Officer has recorded statement of other witnesses and has also submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants. At this stage, it cannot be said that the statement of the witnesses is false and fabricated.
From the perusal of the material on record and keeping in view of the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not made out. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Pujab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 and State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Crl) 192.
The prayer made in the application is refused.
Accordingly, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021 Sachin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. warrant quashing the charge sheet and cognizance order in a child sexual offence case.
Whether the allegations constitute an abuse of the process of Court or would otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Monica Kumar Vs. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶14
Monica Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 781 · Who else cites this
State of Orissa Vs. Saroj Kumar SahooReferred¶16
State of Orissa Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶18
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Pujab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶18
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶18
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Crl) 192 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gajendra
State of U.P.
Anil Kumar-IX
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
