Ajay Verma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024A227/260/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seek restoration of a final report accepted by the trial court after the complainant declined to pursue an FIR alleging sexual assault. The revisional court had set aside acceptance of the final report. The High Court issued notices to opposite party no.2, sought counter affidavits, and temporarily stayed operation of the revisional court's order pending further listing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ajay Verma and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 260 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajay Verma And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Dhar Dwivedi,Sonam Kumari Thapa Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Sonam Kumari Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State as well as perused the material placed before this Court.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed with following main prayers:-

¶7

"I. Issue an order or direction thereby setting aside the order dated 16.12.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.227 of 2023, Smt. Sunita Vs. Ajay Verma and others, contained as Annexure No.1 to this petition, in the interest of justice.

¶8

II. Issue an order or direction to the learned Trial Court to maintain the order dated 28.03.2023 by which the final report so submitted in favour of the petitioners was accepted, in the interest of justice."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioners on 01.11.2022 alleging therein that the complainant/opposite party no.2 is an illiterate lady and her husband works at Delhi for earning livelihood and the opposite party no.2 lives with her two sons and one daughter. It has been alleged that about one and half months back in the night at about 11:30 P.M., the petitioner no.1 entered her house and forcefully committed sexual assault on her. When the opposite party no.2 raised alarm then her children, who were sleeping in the adjoining room, came to rescue her but the petitioner no.1 ran away after administering threats. On the next day, when the opposite party no.2 went to the house of the petitioner no.1, she was abused by the mother and sister-in-law of the petitioner no.1 and his brother also administered threats to her.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the above incident was brought to the notice of police authorities, thus, F.I.R. was lodged. She further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged after one and half months delay and no plausible

¶11

explanation was given regarding such a delay. The petitioners were roped in this case due to villager and political rivalry. In fact no such incident took place as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the statements of the prosecutrix was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., wherein there were material contradictions regarding the incident.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that thereafter the Investigating Officer started investigating the matter and also recorded the statement of some independent witnesses, who do not supported the prosecution case and when the opposite party no.2 got to know this fact, she moved an application alongwith affidavit before the authorities concerned on 16.11.2022 and 06.12.2022, in which, she has clearly stated that she does not want to pursue the matter any further. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer on 08.02.2023 submitted the final report in the matter and notice was issued to the opposite party no.2, wherein she appeared before the learned court below and moved an application on 20.03.2023, in which, she further stated that she does not want to contest this case any further and the proceedings may be closed against the petitioners.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after considering the application moved by the opposite party no.2 dated 20.03.2023, the learned trial court accepted the final report so submitted by the Investigating Officer vide order dated 28.03.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that thereafter the opposite party no.2 challenged the said final report by means of Criminal Revision by moving an application.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the the learned revisional court, without considering this fact that the opposite party no.2 herself had moved the application before the learned trial court regarding closure of the case on the basis of which final report was accepted by the learned trial court as well as the application moved before the police authorities that she is not interested to contest this case, and also without considering the matter in legal aspect and in a cursory manner had set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 28.03.2023, by which final report was accepted and the matter was remanded back to the court below vide order dated 16.12.2023.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 is totally illegal as the same is passed without applicable of judicial mind as well as without

¶16

considering the material placed on record, thus, this will prejudice the right of the petitioners for further litigation. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for interim relief.

¶17

The matter requires consideration on facts and law, both.

¶18

Learned A.G.A.-I has accepted notice on behalf of State opposite party.

¶19

Let notice be issued to opposite party no.2 by R.P.A.D.

¶20

Steps be taken within a week from today.

¶21

Learned A.G.A.-I as well as the opposite party No. 2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶22

List this case on 28.03.2024 before appropriate Court.

¶23

Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.227 of 2023, "Smt. Sunita Vs. Ajay Verma and others" by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gonda shall remain stayed.

¶24

Order Date :- 29.1.2024 Saurabh

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Verma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ajay Verma and 3 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh @ Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Eraz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vedant Maurya @ Kumari Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Mewa Lal Gautam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Govt. Lko.

Sandeep Maitee vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.