In this quashing application, the High Court examined whether there was any illegality in the discharge of applicants facing trial under various IPC and POCSO sections. The Court held that prima facie offence is made out and veracity cannot be tested at this stage.
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. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25614 of 2022
Applicant :- Balram Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Tanay Kumar, learned AGA for the State.
By way of present application, applicants made a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 11.07.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 167 of 2020 as well as cognizance order dated 04.11.2020 and order dated 24.05.2022 and proceeding of S.T. No. 573 of 2020, under Sections 147, 363, 323, 504, 506, 354kha, 342 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Turkpatti, District Kushinagar pending in the court of District and Session Judge/Children Court/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Court No.1, Kushinagar, Padrauna.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present matter by opposite party no.2 in fact they never committed any offence. He next submitted that even from the perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. no offence under Sections 147, 363, 323, 504, 506, 354kha, 342 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act is made out against the applicants as statement of the victim appears to be highly improbable and no reliance can be placed on such hypothetical version. He next submitted that court below failed to properly appreciate the facts and in routine manner dismissed the discharged application moved by the applicants. He next submitted that court below accepted the version of the prosecution as gospel truth and dismissed the discharge application of the applicants, which is illegal.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that there is specific allegation against the applicants in the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. He next submitted that law is settled that veracity of the statement cannot be adjudicated at the time of framing of charge and it can only be properly adjudicated during the course of trial by the trial court, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 24.05.2022, by which, discharge application of the applicants was dismissed. He next submitted
that there is prima facie evidence against the applicants, therefore, applicants cannot be discharged.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
From the perusal of the record, it reflects that applicants are facing trial under Sections 147, 363, 323, 504, 506, 354kha, 342 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act and when they moved discharge application before the court below then court below on 24.05.2022 dismissed their discharge application. From the perusal of the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. it reflects that prima facie cognizable offence under Sections 147, 363, 323, 504, 506, 354kha, 342 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act is made out against the applicants, therefore, it cannot be said that there is illegality in the order dated 24.05.2022. The law is settled by the Apex Court in its catena of decisions that at the time of framing of charge it is only to be seen whether prima facie offence is made out against the accused persons or not. The veracity and genuineness of the statement cannot be scrutinized at the time of framing of charge.
As from the perusal of the statement of the victim prima facie cognizable offence against the applicants is made out, therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 24.05.2022, therefore, neither order dated 24.05.2022 can be quashed nor proceedings pending against the applicants can be quashed, therefore, in view of the above, the instant application moved on behalf of the applicants is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 12.9.2022 AK Pandey
Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.09.14 18:25:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court below committed any illegality in dismissing the discharge application.
Whether a prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the applicants based on victim statements.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Balram Singh And Another
State of U.P.
Sameer Jain
Anupam Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
