The High Court quashed an order summoning the prosecutrix under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO case, noting the lack of specific grounds and the risk of undermining the prosecution. The court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings by June 30, 2023.
The order dated 06.12.2022 summoning the prosecutrix under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was quashed.
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. - 1813 of 2023
Applicant :- Shashikant Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by learned Special Court (The Prevention of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) Court No. 1/Additional District and Session Judge Mau for recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. application in Case Crime. 236 of 2018, under Sections 376D, 504 and 506 IPC and ¾ The Prevention of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Madhuban, District Mau, pending in the court of learned Special Court (The Prevention of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) Court No. 1/Additional District and Session Judge, Mau.
Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the informant of this case who lodged the FIR against Arun @ Pallu and Satish for ravishing his sister Ms. Seema aged about 16 years. After investigation the charge sheet was submitted against Arun @ Pallu and Satish, the date of birth of Km. Seema as per High School Examination is 21.05.2021 and thus computing her age on the date of incident she was barely age of 17 years.
However, during the pendency of the case, the victim was got married and now leading a happy marital life. The Court presumes that in order to save her marital life she has given an application denying the prosecution case on 29.06.2019 whereby she has somersaulted by 180 degree. That application was rejected vide order dated 09.01.2020 by the Additional Session Judge Court No. 1 Mau with the mention that this application was dropped by filing this application, the prosecutrix was not present in person nor the application has been filed by the ADGC and therefore, the earlier application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected. Thereafter, yet another application was moved under Section 231(2) ready with Section 311 Cr.P.C. and this time learned Judge concerned have allowed
the application on 06.12.2022 fixing 13.01.2023 for summoning of the prosecutrix.
I have keenly perused the application given by the accused persons dated 07.09.2022. In paragraph 4 of the said application it has been mentioned in the application that since the prosecutrix have got married and thereafter she came to the Court and moved an application on 15.07.2018 denying the prosecution case that she has never went to attain the call of nature as alleged in the FIR. Now she has got married and in order to save her marital life, peace and tranquility if the prosecutrix is re-summoned in the Court it is just possible that she may be wriggled out of her earlier stand.
Interestingly not a single ground has been mentioned in the said application as to which warrants the summoning of the prosecutrix once again which is desirable for just decision of the case. The application is completely mum and silent on this score.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the number of citations has clearly mentioned that the summoning of the witness should not be made as a matter of routine but should be used sparingly only in order to have just and proper decision of the case.
I have seen the application as well as the impugned order impugned whereby the prosecutrix was summoned. In the application, nor or single question was framed which was proposed to be asked from her. As mentioned above it is every that if the prosecutrix would be re-summoned she would summer sort and demolish the entire prosecution case and this Court is at lost to see any good reason for re-summoning of the victim in exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Hence, the order dated 06.12.2022 is devoid of merit and accordingly quashed.
However, it is expected from the learned court concerned to gear up the matter and make all necessary endeavour to conclude and decided the S.S.T. No. 78 of 2018 latest by 30.06.2023 without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties strictly in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
With the aforesaid directions, this 482 Cr.P.C. application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 3.2.2023 Ujjawal
Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL PARJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order summoning the prosecutrix under Section 311 Cr.P.C. warrants interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it lacks necessity and specific grounds.
Whether there are sufficient just reasons to re-summon the deceased-in-effecutrix/victim who has denied the prosecution case post-marriage.
Whether the impugned order is arbitrary and devoid of merit requiring quashing.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shashikant
State Of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
