Rohit Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2024A482/11303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a charge-sheet and cognizance order in a rape and cheating case arising from an alleged extra-marital relationship. Court found the matter requires consideration, stayed further proceedings of the criminal case until 21.01.2025, and directed the investigating officers to appear with the case-diary and call-detail records on the next date.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings of Criminal Case No.85535 of 2022 stayed till 21.01.2025; IOs directed to appear with case-diary and detailed report of applicant-victim conversations.

Rohit Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11303 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Rohit Pandey

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Meenakshi Singh Parihar,Abhiuday Pratap Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Shukla,Sri Skand Bajpai

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A, the learned counsel for complainant and perused the record.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the following prayer :-

¶9

"(i) To quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 15.08.2022 submitted by police in Case Crime No.273 of 2022, under Sections 376, 406, 420 and 506 I.P.C., police station Vibhuti Khand, district Lucknow as well as summoning/cognizance order dated 16.09.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.85535 of 2022 "State Vs. Rohit Pandey".

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Commandant in Sashatra Seema Bal (SSB) and thereafter promoted the post of Deputy Commandant and was posted in Dirang, district West Komeng, Arunachal Pradesh. The husband of the victim was working in Dirang, Arunachal Pradesh as Scientist in a private company. As the applicant and the victim as well as husband of the victim belong to Uttar Pradesh therefore after sometime hey became friends only for the reason that both are resident of Uttar Pradesh. He submits that when the applicant was posted in Lakhimpur Kheri, the victim started conversations on phone calls as also on whats-app and subsequently the applicant and the victim were having extra-marital relationship and when this relationship came into the knowledge of husband of the victim, he only with the intention to save the victim pressurize her to lodge the first information report of the case in question. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in the impugned first information report, the incident is alleged to have occurred on 25.06.2021 and 10.02.2022 but the first information report has been lodged on 13.05.2022 without explaining any cogent and valid reason for delay. He further submits that during the course of investigation, statement of different hotel staff was recorded in which they categorically stated that the applicant and the victim visited hotel having normal behaviour. He further submits that as per the

¶11

prosecution case, victim stated in her statements recorded under Sections 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC that the incident was reported by the victim to her husband.

¶12

Nisha Singh, Sub-Inspector, police station Vibhuti Khand, district Lucknow, who is present before this Court, stated that she is not Investigating Officer of the concerned case. The investigation of the case in question is being conducted by Pawan Kumar Singh and Udai Raj. Pawan KumarSingh is at present at district Kanpur Nagar. She also submitted that neither detailed report nor the complete record of the case in question is available today with her.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicant submits that during the course of investigation, the cloth on which semen was alleged to be found was provided to the Investigating Officer, which was kept for examination. He further submits that the said cloth on which semen was found was sent for clinical examination. He submits that as per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, no semen was found on the cloth sent for clinical examination. He further submits that the charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant by the Investigating Officer in most mechanical manner without examining the fact that the applicant and victim were having extra-marital relationship with their own choice therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer of the applicant and submitted that after detailed investigation the chargesheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that statement of husband of the victim was never recorded by the Investigating Officer and also requested for sometime to file counter affidavit.

¶15

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for complainant and going through the contents of the first information report as well as other relevant documents and the statement of the hotel staff, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

¶16

List this case 21.01.2025.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Criminal Case No.85535 of 2022 "State Vs. Rohit Pandey", arising out of Case Crime No.273 of 2022, under Sections 376, 406, 420 and 506 I.P.C., police station Vibhuti Khand, district Lucknow, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, shall remain stayed.

¶18

On the next date, both the Investigating Officers, namely, Pawan Kumar Singh and Udai Raj shall appear before this Court along with complete case-diary as well as detailed report provided by service provider with regard to

¶19

conversations made between the applicant and the victim.

¶20

Nisha Singh, Sub-Inspector, police station Vibhuti Khand, district Lucknow,, who is present before this Court today, need not appear until further orders of this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.12.2024. Rks.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Roop Vs Smt. Neha Sharma (Ias), D.M., Gonda

Ashish Dubey Vs Sanjeev Ranjan, Distt. Magistrate Distt. Pratapgarh

Hariram Vs Smt. Mukta Tyagi Chief Judicial Magistrate Sultanpur

Subham Jaiswal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Surendra Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Santosh Kumar Mishra vs Shri Satyendra Kumar, Distt. Magistrate / Collector, Barabanki