In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summons in a POCSO case, the court rejected the plea, finding no illegality or perversity in the lower court's order summoning accused, particularly considering the relationship between the applicant and the victim.
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. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1269 of 2023
Applicant :- Mahendrapal @ Mahendra Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijai Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of Trial No. 634 of 2020 (State vs. Mahendra Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 128 of 2019, under Sections 376D, 376(2) IPC and Section 5L/6 POCSO At, against the applicant no. 1, 2 and 3 and Section 120B IPC and 17 POCSO Act against the applicant no. 4, P.S. Fatehganj West, District Bareilly, pending before Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly as well as impugned summoning order dated 04.04.2022 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Session Judge, Bareilly in Session Trial No. 634 of 2020 (State vs. Mahendra Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 128 of 2019 under Section 376D, 376(2) IPC and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act against the applicant no. 1, 2 and 3 and Section 120-B IPC, and 17 POCSO Act against the applicant no. 4, P.S. Fatehganj West, District Bareilly pending before Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Session Judge, Bareilly.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicants is that FIR was registered on 19.04.2019 by father of the victim, under Sections 363, 366 and Section 8 of POCSO Act against five named accused persons namely Krishna Kumar @ K.K., Gopaldas, Maheshpal, Premvati and Manju. After investigation police has submitted a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. only against Krishna Kumar whereby the Investigating Officer of the case has ignored the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and other materials on record. However, when the same was protested on 04.04.2022 the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act after recording his satisfaction allowed the protest petition and rejected the final report no. 128 of 2019 and have summoned Mahendrapal, Gopaldas and Netrapal, under Section 376D, 376(2) IPC and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act and against accused Dhani Lal, under Section 120 B IPC and section 17 of the POCSO Act.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and learned counsel for the applicants has placed much reliance upon the statement of majid bayan of Mahesh Kumar the informant as well as other witness. It is curious to know that in the majid bayan Mahesh Kumar is making a statement but the same Mahesh Kumar has also filed a protest petition which was eventually allowed and final report was rejected.
Taking into account the totality and circumstances, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order more particularly keeping in view the inter see relation between applicant and victim of the case.
I do not find good reason, the instant application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 3.2.2023 Ujjawal
Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL PARJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing of summons under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted given the inter se relation between the applicant and the victim.
Whether the impugned summoning order rejecting the final report and summoning specific accused persons is illegal or perverse.
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Mahendrapal @ Mahendra Kumar And 3 Others
State of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
