Dismissed

Furkan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2021A482/15878/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet and cognizance order in a POCSO case. The court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated and an offence is not ruled out at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the charge sheet and cognizance order was refused; application dismissed.

Furkan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15878 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Furkan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Meraj Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dt. 24.10.2016 as well as cognizance order dt. 20.1.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 01, Moradabad in S.C. Case No. 39 of 2020, arising out of case crime No. 359 of 2016, under section 363, 366, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. P.S. Mainather, District Moradabad.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the F.I.R, it is alleged that on 17.9.2016 at about 3.00 a.m. the applicants enticed away the minor daughter of O.P. No.2 and after recording the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. the applicants were charge sheeted under section 363, 366, 120-B and 7/8 of POCSO Act. On the basis of said charge sheet the learned magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial. Pursuant to the summoning order, the applicants appeared before the court below and have been directed to be released on bail.

¶8

The contention of counsel for the applicants is that from the allegation made in the F.I.R and the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶9

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the charge sheet and further proceeding is therefore, refused.

¶12

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation, this application is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.11.2021

¶15

Furkan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Furkan and 3 Others 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

Ram Hit Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arif Husain Vs State of U.P. and Others

Gaurav Kumar Gupta and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Gupta @ Pintu and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another