Dismissed

Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2022A482/22060/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The applicant argued the offenses were based on a consensual pre-marital relationship and claimed official duty protection, which was rejected as the acts were personal. Serious allegations of cheating and abduction remained despite disputed facts.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the summoning order and entire proceedings refused and dismissed.

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22060 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

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

¶6

This is application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire proceedings including the summoning order dated 28.07.2021 passed in Case No. 8209 of 2021 (State Vs. Krishna Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 462 of 2020 under Sections 376, 420, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad.

¶7

It is argued that the physical relations between the applicant - Krishna Kumar and Sangeeta Sharma were consensus. At the time of fixing marriage the age of the girl was disclosed to be 19 years and later on, it was found that the real age of Sangeeta Sharma is 29 years, so the marriage was refused. No case under Sections 376, 420, 406 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act is made out against the applicant.

¶8

It is also argued that the applicant is serving in the Armed Forces, hence compliance of Section 197 (2) Cr.P.C. is required before any proceeding being instituted against him. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2021 arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) 11218 of 1999 , wherein the Apex Court found that the parties were in relationship for about one and half years and the relationship between them was of consensus nature and subsequently, the appellant had expressed disinclination to marry the girl which led to the registration of the F.I.R. and on these grounds, the appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court concerned dismissing application under section 482 Cr.P.C. was set aside.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has argued that the benefit of Section 197 (2) Cr.P.C. can only be claimed if the act has been done in pursuance to discharge of official duty of the person. As

¶10

Sangeeta Sharma was the fiance of the applicant, their marriage was fixed by their parents so the act of having physical relations with Sangeeta Sharma cannot be said to be in discharge of the official duty of the applicant.

¶11

As per facts of the case, the first information report was registered by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and others on the allegation that the marriage of Krishna Kumar and the daughter of opposite party no. 2 was fixed and celebration of ' God Bharai ' was also performed. The marriage expenses were fixed at Rs. 20 lacs. The date of marriage was fixed for 4th May, 2020 but due to lock down regarding Covid-19 cases, the marriage was postponed. During this period the applicant took Sangeeta Sharma with him on the pretext of pleasure trips and developed physical relations with Sangeeta Sharma. Later on, the applicant and his family members made extra demand of one car and as the demand was not accepted, the applicant and his family members refused to perform the marriage.

¶12

It is noteworthy that in case of other co-accused Satyavir, the father of the applicant and four others an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15108 of 2021 was moved wherein the coordinate bench of this Court passed the order dated 07.09.2021 and the prayer of quashing the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the present case were refused.

¶13

As the allegation made in the first information report cannot be covered under the act in discharging of official duty of the applicant so the provisions under Section 197 (2) Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be applied in this case. So far as the matter of consensus relationship is concerned, if this allegation is kept aside for a while even then there are other allegations under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act also against the applicant. After going through the first information report at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶14

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.

¶15

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 , the prayer

¶16

for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings is refused.

¶17

The application is hereby dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 10.2.2022 gp

¶19

Digitally signed by GANESH PRAKASH Date: 2022.02.11 18:08:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar 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

Muralitharam Vs State of U.P.

Rais Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Saurabh and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Narendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharda Prasad @ Sharda Prasad Singh and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another