Single judge application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash summoning order in a rape case. Court found specific allegations of rape in FIR, victim statement, and protest petition, rejecting claim of malicious prosecution.
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. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26691 of 2021 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P..And Anothers Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Nath Bhakta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Raj Nath Bhakta, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.K. Maurya, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 21.10.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 69 of 2018, under Sections 323, 352, 376D, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that initially in the present case FIR was lodged and during investigation the acquisitions against the applicants were found false and final report was submitted. Thereafter, on protest petition, learned court below treated the protest petition as a criminal complaint and summoned the applicants on the basis of the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C after rejecting the final report. He further contended that earlier on 19.6.2015, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by mother of the applicants against the husband of opposite party no. 2 and others and on the direction FIR was lodged against Sundar (husband of opposite party no. 2), under Sections 376D 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act on 29.3.2016 and FIR of the present case was lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 22.9.2015 i.e. after three days from the application moved by the mother of the applicants against the husband of opposite party no. 2. Therefore, present proceedings of the complaint case is nothing but a malicious prosecution has been lodged to save the skin from the earlier case and to tarnish the reputation of applicants. Therefore, the impugned summoning order is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA contended that perusal of the FIR as well as the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly discloses an offence under Section 376D against the applicants, but in spite of that investigating officer submitted final report in favour of the applicants and trial court treated the protest petition as a criminal complaint and summoned the applicants in the present matter on the basis of
the protest petition and the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and there is no illegality in the impugned summoning order as statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the protest petition also discloses prima-facie offences under Sections 323, 352, 376D 504 and 506 IPC against the applicants, therefore the present application is liable to be dismissed.
I have perused the record and the rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties.
Perusal of the record shows that in the FIR which was initially lodged in the present case, there was a specific allegation of rape against the applicants and in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. victim also alleged that applicants committed rape and further when final report was submitted, then in protest petition also the same allegation was made against the applicants and also in the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the same allegation of rape was attributed against the applicants and further if earlier an application was moved by applicants against husband of opposite party no. 2 then on this ground impugned summoning order cannot be quashed. I find no illegality in the summoning order.
This present application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Arif
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the summoning order passed in Complaint Case No. 69 of 2018 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. given conflicting final reports and protest petitions.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Manoj Kumar And 2 Others
State Of U.P.
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
