In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and rape, the High Court held that factual disputes regarding false promise of marriage require evidence appreciation during trial. The application could not overcome opposing submissions and was 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. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25296 of 2022
Applicant :- Waseem Ur Rahman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Shiv Sharan Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet no. 547 of 2021 submitted in Case Crime No. 529 of 2021 under Sections 420, 313, 376, 506 IPC as well the entire proceedings of consequential criminal case no. 22823 of 2022 (State Vs. Waseem Ur Rahman) under Sections 376, 420 IPC, Police Station Bannadevi, District Aligarh.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Prosecutrix is major and a consenting party. As such, no offence as complained of can be said to have been committed by applicant. It is next contended that the FIR is highly belated inasmuch as, the occurrences giving rise to the present criminal proceedings are alleged to have occurred for the first time in the year, 2013 whereas the FIR has been lodged in the year, 2021 i.e. after expiry of a period of more than 8 years. Moreover, the delay in lodging the FIR have not been explained either in the FIR nor in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161/164 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that no false promise of marriage was extended by applicant. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the following judgements of Supreme Court:-
1. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608.
2. Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108.
3. Sonu Vs. State of U.P. 2021 SCC Online SC 181.
4. Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649.
On the aforesaid premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that present criminal proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of court. Consequently, same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application. He has invited the attention of Court to the FIR giving rise to present criminal proceedings and on basis thereof, he submits that applicant repeatedly dislodge the modesty of the prosecutrix by extending a false promise of marriage. The issue as to whether any false promise of marriage was extended by the applicant or not can be decided only during the course of trial and not in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as, appraisal and appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant.
When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
As a result present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 11.1.2023 Vinay
Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings instituted under Sections 420, 376, 506 IPC are liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of court due to delay in FIR and malicious prosecution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Waseem Ur Rahman
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
Vinay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
