Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155101

Court No. - 84

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3052 of 2023

Appellant :- Praveen Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ganesh Prasad,Pramod Bhardwaj Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

with

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3396 of 2023

¶7

Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ganesh Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

No one appeared on behalf of the opp. party no. 2 despite of sufficient notice.

¶11

The above mentioned two appeals have been preferred on behalf of appellants Praveen Kumar and Sunil Kumar against the cognizance order dated 19.5.2020 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Banda in case no. 87 of 2020, State Vs. Sunil Kumar and others) in case no. 134 of 2016, under section 363 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act, police station Naraini, District Banda.

¶12

Vide order dated 12.4.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 3396 of 2023 by the coordinate bench of this court, the present appeal 3052 of 2023 was connected with cr. appeal no. 3396 of 2023. Both the appeals being related to the same FIR, charge sheet and the same incident, are being heard together and decided by a common order.

¶13

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that previously regarding the same incident, the father of the alleged victim had filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated

¶14

1.4.2016 which was registered as complaint vide order dated 13.4.2016 and after the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. on 16.5.2016 this complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. in absence of the complainant. Later on, on the same cause of action regarding the same incident dated 9.3.2016, the mother of the alleged victim lodged an FIR on 14.6.2016 wherein during investigation the statements of the victim under sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In her both statements the victim did not support the prosecution version. As per the medical report appended at page 60 of the paper book, the alleged victim refused for her medical examination. Before the doctor she has stated that her mother had lodged a false FIR as her mother wanted to get her married with one Umakant but she wanted to continue her study. She left her home on her own volition. Despite of the statements of the victim against the prosecution version, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet under section 363 I.P.C. and section 3(1) (11) of SC/ST Act which do not apply to this case, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but could not controvert the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶16

From the perusal of the record, it is found that the alleged victim aged about 17 years was allegedly found missing from her house from the mid night of 9.3.2016. Regarding that incident the FIR was lodged against the appellants. Prior to the FIR, a complaint was filed by the father of the alleged victim which was dismissed in default on 16.5.2016. Thereaftrer the mother of the victim lodged the FIR on 14.6.2016 on the same allegations. The statements of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. and under section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein she has stated that on 9.3.2016 she had herself left her home as her mother wanted to get her married forcibly. She sold her anklet for Rs. 2500/- and went to Karba, then to Delhi and from there she went to Manesar Haryana. She did a job for 3 and 1/2 months at a salary of Rs. 8900/- per month. She went to Satan and got an admission in Rajiv Gandhi college. She wanted to persue her studies further. Sunil met her at Attarra and on her request, he had dropped her at Bhadosa. Sunil did nothing wrong with her. When she was coming back to her house, the police apprehended her. She also refused from her medical examination. When she was apprehended by the police, the report was lodged by her mother on the false ground. There is nothing on record to show that any of the appellants had kidnapped the alleged victim who is said to be aged about 17 years i.e. a

¶17

minor on the date of the incident. She has neither stated that she was taken away by any of the appellants or she lived with any of the appellants, nor she was apprehended along with any of the appellants by the police, so the offence under section 363 I.P.C. can be said to be made out against the appellants. So far as section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act is concerned, there is no such section in the amended Act, or in the original SC/ST Act. No such section 3(1) (11) of SC/ST Act exist in any book of law. Thus, no offence can be said to be made out against the appellants. In the impugned order the concerned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) has not disclosed as to what was the evidence before him to take cognizance against the appellants. In the opinion of the court, there is no evidence on record to take cognizance against the appellants in both section 363 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act.

¶18

Thus, both the appeals are allowed.

¶19

The summoning order dated 19.5.2020 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Banda in case no. 87 of 2020, State Vs. Sunil Kumar and others) in case no. 134 of 2016, under section 363 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act, police station Naraini, District Banda is hereby set aside.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Gss

¶21

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akbar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Laeek and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Patel and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajendra Vs State of U.P.