Dismissed

Jagdish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2022/1179/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 petition, the High Court dismissed the quashing plea regarding a summons order in a POCSO case. The Court held that disputed facts and truthfulness of allegations cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Liberty was granted to the applicant to move a bail application to the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing dismissed; liberty granted to move bail application before the Court below within ten days.

Jagdish Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1179 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jagdish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Shesh Narain Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 01.02.2021, passed by the learned Spl. Judge POCSO Act/ Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Sultanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ applicant has submitted that a false and fabricated complaint has been filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with an accusation against the petitioner / applicant that he caught the minor daughter of the complainant and tried to outrage her modesty. It is further submitted that the petitioner / applicant was elected as Village Pradhan since 2010 to 2015 and the complainant is close to the present Gram Pradhan, so due to political enmity the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of interim relief and has submitted that from the complaint and the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the offence as alleged is, prima facie, made out against the petitioner / applicant. It is further submitted that these disputed questions of fact which could be adjudicated only after adducing the evidence. Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶9

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going

¶10

through the record, it is found that all the submissions made at the bar related to the disputed questions of fact, cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

At this stage only, prima facie, case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by 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, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843, TGN Kumar Vs. State of Kerala; (2011) 2 SCC 772 and lastly Chilakmarthi Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2019) SCC Online SC 948.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record and in the light of the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court mentioned above, it is found that there is specific allegation in the complaint, which is intact in the statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The questioner whether the petitioner / applicant has falsely been implicated in this case can only be adjudicated after adducing the evidence, hence, the present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he may be given liberty to move bail application before the Court's below and the same may be decided in the light of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Satyendar Kumar Antil vs. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has no objection of the said prayer.

¶15

In view of above, the liberty is given to the petitioner to move bail application before the Court below within ten days and the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in the light of aforesaid judgement and in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.3.2022 S. Kumar

¶17

Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.16 18:01:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jagdish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home and 3 Others

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

Mohd. Naseem and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Dept. of Home and Another

Devi Gharan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lal Ji Vs State of U.P.

Mahboob Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Manoj Verma and Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Ashok Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another