Dismissed

Mantu Kumar Shah and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2022/4601/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings regarding abduction and sexual assault charges. The Court held it was premature to quash proceedings as the trial court must examine evidence before determining the merits of the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of criminal proceedings dismissed as it is devoid of merit and substance.

Mantu Kumar Shah and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4601 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mantu Kumar Shah And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Madhavan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.436 of 2019 arising out of FIR No.37 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station P.G.I., Lucknow.

¶6

2. Brother of petitioner No.2 gave a written complaint at the police station alleging that his sister, prosecutrix on 11.01.2019 i.e. date of the complaint, aged around 16 years, wearing blue color kurta, sweater and black color shawl had gone missing from the house without informing anyone. On this complaint, the FIR in question came to be registered under Section 363 IPC.

¶7

3. After 15 days, the prosecutrix was recovered, and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police. In her statement, she said that she started talking to the accused-petitioner since 2016. When this fact came to the knowledge of the family members of the prosecutrix, she was sent to her brother's place in November, 2018. She met the accused three times in Lucknow. On 11.01.2020, she along with accused-Mantu Kumar Shah went out of Lucknow without informing anyone. They took train from Charbagh Railway Station to Ekma Station, Bihar. From Ekma, they went to Chapra, where family members of accused-Mantu got her marriage performed with him. It was further said that she stayed with accused Mantu as his wife.

¶8

4. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix said that her date of birth recorded in High School Certificate was 05.08.2001. Her father got her date of birth mentioned

¶9

2 years less from the date of birth recorded in High School Certificate. She knew the accused Mantu for last three years, and they were in love. The prosecutrix wanted to marry him. Family members of the prosecutrix were not ready to get her marriage fixed with the accused as they belong to two different castes. On 11.01.2019, she went with Mantu Kumar Shah to Ekma and on 15.01.2019 they reached Chapra where they got married. She said that she went with accused-Mantu Kumar Shah on her own volition out of her free will without any force or coercion.

¶10

5. The Investigating officer after investigating the offence filed charge-sheet against petitioner No.1 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act. After framing of the charge, trial has set in motion. The prosecutrix is being examined as P.W.-2 before the trial Court. In her examination-in-chief, she has not supported the prosecution case.

¶11

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that considering the statement of the prosecutrix before the Court in her examination-inchief, continuance of the proceedings in Sessions Trial No.436 of 2019 would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, proceedings be quashed.

¶12

7. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is a special Act, which has been enacted to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and provide for establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

¶13

8. In the present case, charge has been framed against the accused for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act. It is for the trial Court to decide whether the prosecution has been able to prove charge on the basis of evidence led by it or not. There is no ground to quash the proceedings by this Court at this stage. It is for the accused to file an appropriate application at a relevant time, if there is no evidence before the Court. However, there is no ground to

¶14

interfere with the on going proceedings by this Court. This petition being devoid of merit and substance is hereby dismissed .

¶15

( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. )

¶16

Order Date :- 18.7.2022 prateek

¶17

Digitally signed by PRATEEK ARORA Date: 2022.07.19 18:06:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mantu Kumar Shah and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantu Kumar Shah and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gireesh Chandra Vs the Prin. Judge Family Court Faizabad and Another

Sabir Ali and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Annu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Pinkal Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Nehal Beg Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Praveen Kumar Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Lko. and Another