Court dismissed quashing appeal in rape case. Held that pre-trial facts require adjudication by trial court; prima facie case exists; quashing not justified under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Prayer for quashing entire proceedings refused; application rejected.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:105968
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12366 of 2023
Applicant :- Sunil Barar @ Sanjay Thakur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Keshav Singh Yadav
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1
and was returning from there, the applicant along with 2-3 unknown persons intercepted the opposite party no.2 and her mother pressurized to enter into compromise or return Rs.5 lakhs, which has been spent in the case and also threatened for life, in case, the victim does not enter into compromise. When the victim refused to enter into compromise and expressed her inability to give any money to the applicant, she was made unconscious by administering some intoxicants. It has also been alleged that she is undergoing treatment at Jhansi Medical College. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and applicant has been summoned, therefore, the present application has been filed.
"Mr. Keshav Yadav, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and filed short counter affidavit along with Vakalatnama in Court today, is kept on record. Office is directed to register the same.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that parties have amicably settled the dispute and have entered into compromise.
Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the victim had filed a case against the applicant under Section 376 I.P.C. and pressure has been exerted upon her to enter into compromise.
In view of above, let Sunil Barar @ Sanjay Thakur, applicant and Kalpana Ahirwar, opposite party no.2, be present before this Court, on the next date fixed i.e. 08.05.2023.
Put up as fresh on 08.05.2023.
Learned counsel for the parties shall ensure presence of the aforesaid persons on the next date.
When the matter is listed next, name of Mr. Keshav Yadav, Advocate be shown as counsel for opposite party no.2. "
2
Again when the matter was taken up on 08.05.2023, the following order was passed:-
"Earlier on 01.05.2023, the following order was passed:-
"Mr. Keshav Yadav, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and filed short counter affidavit along with Vakalatnama in Court today, is kept on record. Office is directed to register the same.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that parties have amicably settled the dispute and have entered into compromise.
Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the victim had filed a case against the applicant under Section 376 I.P.C. and pressure has been exerted upon her to enter into compromise.
In view of above, let Sunil Barar @ Sanjay Thakur, applicant and Kalpana Ahirwar, opposite party no.2, be present before this Court, on the next date fixed i.e. 08.05.2023.
Put up as fresh on 08.05.2023.
Learned counsel for the parties shall ensure presence of the aforesaid persons on the next date.
When the matter is listed next, name of Mr. Keshav Yadav, Advocate be shown as counsel for opposite party no.2."
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the applicant-Sunil Barar @ Sanjay Thakur as well as opposite party no.2Kalpana Ahirwar are present before this Court, who have been identified and their signatures have also been attested by their counsel.
The opposite party no.2-Kalpana Ahirwar states that she has already married the applicant and, therefore, she does not want to proceed with the case. She has also stated that earlier she was married to some other fellow, who had harassed her and, therefore, several cases have been lodged by her against her husband. Till date, no divorce has been obtained by her from her first husband. She further states that though an FIR for the real incident was lodged under Section 376 IPC against the applicant, but she has forgiven him on the request of his old age parents.
The applicant-Sunil Barar @ Sanjay Thakur also states that he is married with one Smt. Satyawati and out of the wedlock, he is blessed with four children. His wife is presently residing at village and now, he has performed second marriage with opposite party no.2 and are living happily.
3
The Court feels that no such settlement can be arrived between the parties on the basis of marriage between the two as both of them are already married and the opposite party no.2 has not obtained divorce from her first marriage and the marriage of applicant is still in existence. The applicant has performed second marriage with opposite party no.2 in order to save his skin from the on going trial proceedings in the matter of offence under Section 376 IPC for which earlier an FIR has already been lodged by opposite party no.2.
Let this matter be heard on merits on the next date fixed, i.e. 16.05.2023.
Put up this case on 16.05.2023 as fresh."
4
against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned A.G.A. has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019.
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
5
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly
(ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.
6
Order Date :- 16.5.2023 Rahul.
7
Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction exists to quash proceedings at pre-trial stage on merits.
Whether allegations amount to abuse of process of law or malicious initiation warranting quashing.
Whether compromise based on bigamous marriage negates prima facie case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dilbag Rai Vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶37
AIR 2019 (SC) 693 · Who else cites this
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind KhannaReferred¶37
MANU/SC/1432/2019
R.P. Kapur Versus State of PunjabReferred¶41
AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan LalReferred¶42
1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. SharmaReferred¶43
1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful HaqueReferred¶45
2005 (1) SCC 122 · Who else cites this
M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar SrivastavaReferred¶45
2009 (9) SCC 682 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of BiharReferred¶45
2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454
Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶46
2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45
Rajeev Kaurav Vs. BalasahabReferred¶46
2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶47
2021 SCC Online SC 315 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunil Barar @ Sanjay Thakur
State of U.P.
Another (unnamed)
Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
