Disposed

Vishesh Dhigan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023A482/27807/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which sought to quash charges and proceedings but was withdrawn. The Court directed the applicant to surrender within two weeks and ordered an expeditious disposal of his pending bail application citing guidelines from Satender Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

Protection from arrest granted for two weeks or until surrender; direction to surrender and expedite bail hearing.

Vishesh Dhigan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190690

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27807 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vishesh Dhigan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Dhananjay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Balram Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1, Mr. M.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the chargesheet dated 27.6.2023, cognizance as well as summoning order dated 28.6.2023 and proceedings of criminal case no. 217 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Vishesh Dhigan) arising out of Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 147 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376(3), 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, Police Station Crossing Republic, District - Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ghaziabad.

¶8

The basic facts which are required to be stated are that the mother of victim lodged F.I.R. on 25.4.2023 for the alleged offence under Section 363 I.P.C. against the applicant alleging therein that on 18.4.2023 at about 2:00 P.M. her daughter had gone with the applicant without giving any information to her. During investigation victim was recovered on 26.4.2023 and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has stated interalia that she was enticed away by the applicant who committed mis-deed with her without her consent. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 3.5.2023 in which she has also made allegation against the applicant stating inter-alia that she was forcibly took away by the applicant and kept her in a room for five days and also made physical relation with her without her consent. Thereafter victim again came in the contact of the applicant and

¶9

preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7866 of 2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.5.2023 observing that in the event if it is found that victim had attained the age of majority and her 164 Cr.P.C. statement favours the applicant then the applicant shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter a second statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded on 13.6.2023 wherein she has made allegation of assault against her mother. In the said statement she has also stated that she herself left her house and had gone with the applicant, thereafter she solemnized marriage with the applicant on 27.3.2023 and also got their marriage registered on 27.3.2023 in the ofÏce of Marriage Registration OfÏcer (IV), Ghaziabad. The Investigating OfÏcer after culmination of investigation submitted charge sheet dated 27.6.2023 under Sections 363, 376(3), 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, on which the concerned court below took cognizance on 28.6.2023 and applicant has been summoned, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present case.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per supplementary medico-legal report, doctor has opined that there are no sign suggestive of recent forcible penetration of vagina by any blunt object. Both the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim are contrary to each other. Victim in her first statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case whereas she in her second statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not support the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the victim is major and she was consenting with the applicant, but Investigating OfÏcer without conducting fair investigation submitted charge sheet against the applicant for the alleged offence under POCSO Act also.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant after advancing his arguments at some length and putting certain query by the Court as to whether defence of the accused-applicant can be taken into consideration or

¶12

not, gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned charge-sheet, summoning order, Non-bailable warrant and impugned criminal proceedings against the applicant and confined his submission requesting to grant some protection to the applicant to surrender before the concerned Court below. The learned counsel for the applicant further stated at the Bar that he is not pressing any other prayer made in this application on merits and prayed that a direction may be issued to the concerned Courts below to decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submit that in case the applicant is not pressing the relief as sought for by him on merits and wants to surrender before the concerned Court below, they have no objection if the Court grants protection to him for a short period.

¶14

In view of the above, the relief as sought by the applicant in the instant application is refused.

¶15

However considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned Court below within two weeks from today and in case applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶16

For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned Court below, whichever is earlier, he shall not be arrested in the above case.

¶17

With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.10.2023 Aiman

¶19

Digitally signed by :- AIMAN FAROOQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishesh Dhigan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishesh Dhigan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Roop Chand and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shekhar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faisal @ Mohd. Faisal Vs State of U.P. and Another