Dismissed

Nitin v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2023A482/43742/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant sought to quash a charge sheet and proceedings under Sections 323, 506, 354-A, and 354-D IPC in a sexual offence case, alleging false implication and abuse of process. The High Court held that post-FIR totality requires trial-based adjudication on facts and rejected the application, finding a prima facie case existed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of charge sheet, cognizance order, and entire proceedings refused.

Nitin Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43742 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nitin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Rakesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 17.12.2021 and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1111 of 2022, 'State v. Nitin Kumar and others' arising out of Case Crime No. 196 of 2021, under Sections 323, 506, 354-A, 354-D IPC, Police Station Arwa Katra, District Auraiya as also congizance order dated 07.7.2022.

¶7

A first information report (FIR) has been lodged by the victim herself against two named accused persons including the applicant alleging therein that while she was returning from her coaching, at about 1 O' Clock, near Puliya the applicant tried to outrage her modesty.

¶8

Prior to this incidence, once, a complaint regarding an incident akin to present one, was made to father of the applicant, who tendered apologies for the same assuring that the conduct will not be repeated in future. Recurring of said incident resulted in lodging of present FIR. In the present case, after completion of investigation, a chargesheet has been filed and the applicant is released on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as no allegation is levelled under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which may attract the offence under the alleged Sections, however in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., after about eleven days, improvement has been made with regard to facts of incident. He further submits that summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicious mind.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that it is the victim who lodged the FIR, therefore, stand taken by the applicant regarding variation in statements recorded under Sections 161

¶11

and 164 Cr.P.C. has no relevance and since after collecting cogent and credible evidence charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is entitled for any relief by this Court.

¶12

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

¶13

This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:

¶14

(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866;

¶15

(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335;

¶16

(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222;

¶17

(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122;

¶18

(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682;

¶19

(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454;

¶20

(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45;

¶21

(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 , and

¶22

(ix) M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra; (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315 .

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

¶24

The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet as well as cognizance order and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.

¶25

In view of above, the present application is rejected.

¶26

Order Date :- 28.2.2023 DS

¶27

Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nitin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin 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

Ramautar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mohitlata Sunda and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bittu Prasad @ Chandrama and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Gupta Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omveer and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another