Dismissed

Yogesh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022A482/13782/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed the application for quashing proceedings under Sections 452 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act. Held that sufficient ground existed to issue summons based on corroborated statements of victim and independent witness, rejecting claims of contradictions.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of entire proceedings and stay of further proceedings dismissed.

Yogesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13782 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Yogesh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Dube Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Singh Sirohi

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ganesh Pandey holding brief of Sri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Gaurav Singh Sirohi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

¶6

The applicants have preferred this application for quashing the entire proceedings of Complainant Case No. 15/2021 under Section 452, 323 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, (Smt. Bindu Vs. Sanni and others) Police Station- Jani, District Meerut as well as summoning order dated 26.03.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Meerut with a prayer to stay the further proceedings.

¶7

The opposite party No.2 has filed a criminal complaint against applicants under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for allegedly committing above-referred offence. Her statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., statement of victim was recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as well as statement of independent witness was also recorded and learned Magistrate by impugned order dated 26.03.2022 considered the above referred statements and reached to a conclusion that there are sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants, therefore, the applicants were summoned.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicants submits that there are major contradictions in the complaint as well as in the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In complaint, the complainant has narrated about two incidents, first of

¶9

10.06.2021 for which an F.I.R. was already lodged and second occurrence which allegedly took place on 29.09.2021 for which present proceedings were initiated.

¶10

Learned counsel further submits that in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the accused persons have not committed any occurrence from 18.06.2021 to 29.06.2021, therefore, entire case of opposite party No.2 are on false ground.

¶11

I have perused the record and find that contention of counsel for applicants about the statement that no occurrence took place from 18.06.2021 to 29.06.2021 by the applicants is completely erroneous so much as that she has stated that "स्ववातत, पपूजवा, ससंगगीतवा और रशशश, ययोगगेश तदिनवासंक 18.06.2021 सगे 29.06.2021 कगे दिदौरवान सनगी नगे कयोई घटनवा

¶12

नहीሻ ककी। " However, the above sentence cannot be read to the extent that opposite party No.2 has denied the occurrence occurred on 18.06.2021 and on 29.06.2021. The inference of above statement is only that in between 18.06.2021 and 29.06.2021 no occurrence took place as well as the reliance placed by learned counsel for applicants on a letter dated 07.07.2021 that the opposite party No.2 and his family members might tried to implicate them in a false case cannot be looked upon at this stage as said document was not before learned Magistrate when the impugned summoning order was passed.

¶13

The words 'sufficient ground', used under Section 203 Cr.P.C. have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction (para 15 of S.W. Palanitkar Vs State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 241) . "...All that he (Magistrate) has to see is whether or not there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding, against the accused. At this stage magistrate is not

¶14

to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial court. The standard to be adopted by the magistrate in scrutinizing the evidence is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges." (para 10 of Kewal Krishnan S/o Lachman Dass Vs Suraj Bhan and Ors 1980 Supp SCC 499 ).

¶15

In view of above discussion, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicants has no force and on the basis of careful perusal of complaint, statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. I find that there are sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants as averments made in complaint are completely corroborated by statements of victim as well as of complainant and independent witness, under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Therefore, the conclusion of learned Magistrate that there are sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants cannot be interfered under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

¶17

The application stands dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 16.9.2022 Nirmal Sinha

¶19

(Sl.No. 16 out of 290 fresh cases)

¶20

Digitally signed by NIRMAL SINHA Date: 2022.09.17 10:42:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yogesh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh and 5 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

Satveer Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dilshad and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Nishad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lav Kush @ Deepu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bharat Kumar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another