Dismissed

Satya Prakash Chaubey @ Chhote Chaubey v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023A482/40857/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash lower court orders regarding territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held that under Section 220 Cr.P.C., the offences formed one series of acts connected to the same transaction, involving interactions at both locations, thus no illegality warranted interference. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash orders and for quashing of proceedings was dismissed due to lack of merit and valid territorial jurisdiction under Section 220 Cr.P.C.

Satya Prakash Chaubey @ Chhote Chaubey Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40857 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Satya Prakash Chaubey @ Chhote Chaubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sapan Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sapan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the order dated 24.12.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur and order dated 14.10.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC (Offences against women), Gorakhpur passed in S.T. No.1000 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.71 of 2019, under Sections 323, 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

In short, the prosecution story is that applicant and his father has pursued informant's father to do marriage of the informant with one Bharat @ Sonu. On their instance, the marriage of informant was solemnized with Bharat @ Sonu on 12.03.2018. It is further alleged that after 12-13 days, they took the informant to the house of Bharat @ Sonu at Lucknow and after 5-6 days, the victim returned at Pipraich. It is further alleged that after spending 2-3 months at Pipraich, again the informant went to Lucknow at the instance of applicant, where the applicant committed wrongful act with the informant by showing knife.

¶8

Earlier the applicant and other co-accused had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3963 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.02.2019 with the direction that applicants shall not be arrested till submissions of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. After submission of charge sheet, the applicant had again approached this Court by filing Application u/s 482 No.11399 of 2020, which was also disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2020 giving liberty to the applicant to move discharge application and till discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant had moved discharge application before court below at Gorakhpur, which was

¶9

dismissed. The applicant again moved discharge application on the ground that the incident has taken place in Lucknow whereas the FIR has been lodged at Pipraich, Gorakhpur, who has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case, hence, prayed to discharge the applicant from the charges levelled against him, which was also rejected vide order dated 14.10.2022, which is impugned in this application.

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to pressurize and harass the applicant, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicant was mediator of the marriage and also witness in the case filed by the informant, who is the husband of the victim. Sole argument of learned counsel for the applicant is in respect of territorial jurisdiction. As per FIR, the allegation of rape at District Lucknow whereas the investigating officer investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet at District Gorakhpur, therefore, it cannot be said that the offene was committed at Lucknow. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of Ms. P xxx vs State of Uttrakhand and another, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 538 in which in paragraph 25, the Court has held as under:

¶11

"Upshot of the foregoing discussion is that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the alleged offence under Section 376 IPC and the other offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC do not fall within the ambit of 'one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction' for the purpose of trial together in terms of Section 220 CrPC. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli had rightly discharged the accused-respondent No. 2 of the offence under Section 376 IPC IPC for want of territorial jurisdiction."

¶12

On the basis of above, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since all offence which are alleged against the applicant by the victim has taken place at Lucknow, no offence against the applicant was alleged to be done at Gorakhpur, hence, the Gorakhpur has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case of the applicant.

¶13

On the other hand, supporting the impugned order, Mr. R.P. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. He has relied upon Section 220 Cr.P.C.

¶14

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶15

For appreciation of the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, Section 220 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-

¶16

220. Trial for more than one offence. -(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.

¶17

(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 212 or in sub-section (1) of Section 219 is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.

¶18

(3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.

¶19

(4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, or such acts.

¶20

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

¶21

Perusal of record shows that the act of rape has been committed at District Lucknow, but seeing the entire scenario of impugned FIR, Pipraich is also concerned, which is about 20 km away from District Gorakhpur. As per version of the impugned FIR, the victim firstly went at Pipraich, thereafter, she went at Lucknow. The victim is aged about 20 years and her marriage was solemnized at the instance of applicant. After the marriage, the applicant and his family members alongwith informant and her husband went to Lucknow, where the victim was compelled by her husband to make sexual relation with the applicant. Record further shows that applicant has also extended threat on phone calls received by the victim.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has critically examined the allegations as well as the statement of victim recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and found that sub section 4 of Section 220 Cr.P.C. is attracted in the present case, therefore, the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application of the applicant. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below, which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶23

The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶24

Order Date :- 16.2.2023

¶25

Ajeet

¶26

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satya Prakash Chaubey @ Chhote Chaubey v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Prakash Chaubey @ Chhote Chaubey v. State of U.P and Another

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

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P and Another

Sandeep Kumar Mishra and 6 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Suhail Ahmad Sardar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prabal Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anju Aggarwal Vs state of up through secretary home and 2 others

Rahul Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another