Dismissed

Hukum Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024A482/23048/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought quashing of an FIR, charge sheet, and cognizance order in a criminal case involving unspecified allegations of rape, molestation, and insult. The High Court refused the prayer for quashing, stating that veracity of statements must be determined during trial and no other cogent ground existed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of entire proceedings is refused. Bail application to be filed within 30 days for expeditious hearing.

Hukum Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:126160

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23048 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hukum Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been filed by the applicants with prayer to allow the present application by quashing the charge sheet dated 25.8.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 16.3.2024 along with entire proceeding of Case No 34701/IX of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 182 of 2023, under Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Magorra, District Mathura, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Mathura.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in this case an F.I.R. was lodged on 15.11.2022 against opposite party no. 2 by the applicants for an incident said to have taken place on 7.11.2022. In counterblast to that F.I.R. present F.I.R. was lodged by the informant who is wife of one Babu who was accused in the aforesaid F.I.R. Further submitted that after 10 months of the alleged incident present F.I.R. was registered on the basis of order passed by the learned court on the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Several allegations were made against the applicants regarding rape and molestation but those were not found to be established on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation, therefore, charge sheet was filed by the police only under Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC. There was no any injury to the informant side but the applicants' side sustained injury in the incident which took place on 7.11.2022. The police without making proper investigation filed charge sheet and the learned court concerned also took cognizance of the offence, which cannot be said to be lawful, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings of the case including charge sheet as well as order of cognizance.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that incident is said to have occurred on 07.11.2022 between both the parties regarding which information was given to the police on dial 112. When police came on the spot, the applicants went away from place of incident. She moved an application at the police station but F.I.R. was not lodged as a result she appeared before the S.S.P. on 15.11.2022 but no any action was taken. She sent a registered information to S.S.P. on 2.12.2022 and on 05.12.2022 an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned court on the basis of which present F.I.R. was lodged, therefore, it cannot be said that F.I.R. was lodged after ten months of the alleged incident by concocting a false story. Further contended that during the course of investigation allegations of rape and molestation were not found to be established on the basis of material on record, therefore, charge sheet was filed under Section 452, 504, 506, IPC only. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation which cannot be said to be illegal.

¶10

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record, the F.I.R. in the present case, charge sheet and the order passed by the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance of offence, it appears that at this stage, the veracity of statements of informant and witnesses cannot be decided, it can only be done during trial. There is no other cogent ground to quash the entire proceedings of the case including charge sheet and order of cognizance passed by the learned trial court, therefore prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the case is hereby refused.

¶11

However, at the request of learned counsel for the applicants it is directed that in case, the applicants appear and move bail application before the learned court within a period of 30 days from today, it will be heard and decided expeditiously as far as possible in the light of case decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another LL 2022 SC 577 decided on 11.07.2022.

¶12

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of finally.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Anurag Singh

¶14

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

Hukum Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukum Singh and 3 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakeel Ahamad vs State of Up and 4 Others

Mahesh Prasad Shukla vs State of Up and 15 Others

Raka @ Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Nikhil Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Tayyab Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raju and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another