Applicants sought quashing of an order rejecting their discharge application, arguing a date discrepancy in the FIR and application. The court found the dispute was factual and the prima facie case was established, holding the petition devoid of merit and dismissing it.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
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. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24326 of 2021
Applicant :- Sonu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Datta Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 8.9.2021 passed by Additional Session Judge / Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.4, Gorakhpur in Special S.T. No.788 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 250 of 2018, under Section 354, 452, 302, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Chauri Chaura, District - Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that Respondent No.2 has mentioned the date of incident as 10.10.2017, whereas in the application given by the Complainant to the S.S.P., Gorakhpur, (annexure no. 5 to the present petition) the date of incident has been shown as 12.10.2017 so, the date of incident in the FIR is incorrect. It is further submitted that this submission of the applicants was not considered by the Trial Court while deciding the application for discharge and the applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court to certified copy of the application preferred by the complainant to the S.S.P., Gorakhpur.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 8.9.2021 passed by Additional Session Judge / Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.4, Gorakhpur in Special S.T. No.788 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 250 of 2018, under Section 354, 452, 302, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Chauri Chaura, District - Gorakhpur, rejecting the discharge application and from the F.I.R. and the statements, the offence is made out against the applicants. It is further submitted 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 by adducing evidence and, therefore, the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, particularly, it is found that the application made to the S.S.P., Gorakhpur (annexure no. 5 to the present petition) relied by the learned counsel for the applicants wherein date of incident has been shown as 10.10.2017 and the date 12.10.2017 as the date of admission of the deceased in the District Hospital, Gorakhpur and not the date of occurrence of the incident.Postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 17.11.2017. The applicants are taking advantage regarding the date of admission i.e. 12.10.2017 as the date of incident.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 and others reported in 2011 2 SCC 772 and lastly Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2019 SCC Online 948.
In view of above, this petition is devoid of merit and hence no interference is required.
Petition under Section 482 is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.4.2022 S. Kumar
Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR Date: 2022.04.12 09:52:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition to quash the impugned order on the ground of date discrepancy in FIR is maintainable at a stage where prima facie case is made out.
Whether disputed questions of fact regarding the date of incident can be adjudicated in a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶10
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of GujaratReferred¶10
Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 · Who else cites this
TGN Kumar Vs. State of KeralaReferred¶10
TGN Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2011 2 SCC 772 · Who else cites this
Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶10
Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2019 SCC Online 948 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sonu And Another
State Of U.P And Another
Manish Kumar
Santosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
