Dismissed

Victim a Complainant of Complaint Case No. 16030 of 2021 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024/9537/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash a lower court order. The court rejected the argument that judicial examination of witnesses is mandatory under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for offences triable exclusively by Sessions Courts, distinguishing the cited precedent.

What the court decided

AI extract

Victim a Complainant of Complaint Case No. 16030… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72828

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9537 of 2024 Applicant :- Victim A Complainant Of Complaint Case No. 16030 Of 2021 Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- D.P. Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 12.8.2024 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Bahraich in Criminal Revision No.79 of 2024.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that marriage of the applicant was settled with the private respondent, as a result, private respondent started intimating with her and on 25.4.2021, when she went to the hospital for treatment of her mother, private respondent met her and made physical relation against her wishes, then she started weeping but assurance was given for solemnizing the marriage. He further submits that when parents of the applicant asked to fix the date of marriage, then private respondent denied to solemnize the marriage, thereafter, complaint was made to the police as well as on I.G.R.S. Portal, then application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the concerned Magistrate and the said application is treated as complaint case. He further submits that after recording the statement under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., summoning order was passed, which was challenged in the revision and revision was allowed on the ground that police report was not considered by the learned court below prior to the issuance of summoning order, thereafter, learned Magistrate again passed summoning order, then said order was again challenged in the revision and revisional court set aside the order with the observation that as per the provisions of Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., if the alleged offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions then Magistrate shall call upon to produce all the witnesses and examine all of them. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that

¶8

aforesaid provisions was diluted by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary & Ors. reported in 2010 (8) SCC 578 and requested for indulgence of this Court.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the alleged offence is triable by the Sessions Judge. She also submits that as per the prosecution case, marriage of the victim was settled with the private respondent but the date of marriage has not been disclosed in the entire complaint and the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that in the interest of justice presiding ofÏcer is competent to call upon all the witnesses and examine them, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application, order passed by the learned court below as well as other relevant material, it is evident that as per the prosecution case, applicant/complainant/victim is a prudent graduate major lady aged about 26 years and as per her case, on 25.4.2021, she went to the hospital alongwith her mother for treatment where rape was committed by the applicant on the pretext that her marriage has already been settled with him but thereafter, private respondent denied to enter into marriage with the applicant on the scheduled date but it is also evident from the record that date of marriage has not been disclosed either in the complaint or in the present application moved before this Court.

¶11

As there is a statutory provisions under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that if the alleged evidence is exclusively triable by the Magistrate, then Magistrate should call upon all the witnesses and examine them in the interest of justice, as the facts of the case relied by learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the present case, accordingly, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby, dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 5.11.2024/Gaurav/-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Victim a Complainant of Complaint Case No. 16030 of 2021 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Victim a Complainant of Complaint Case No. 16030 of 2021 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pratibha Verma and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 55 Others

Miss X (Victm /Complainant in Crime No. 205/2021) Thru. Grandmother Mrs. Siddheshwari Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Vijaya Nand Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shivam Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Amrish Chandra Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another