Dismissed

Mehroj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2024A482/26832/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of proceedings in a rape case under section 482 CrPC, arguing the prosecutrix introduced rape allegations inconsistently. Charges had since been framed by the trial court and that order was unchallenged; the High Court declined to exercise inherent powers and dismissed the application with liberty to challenge the charge-framing order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to applicant to avail alternate remedy against the order framing charges.

Mehroj vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:188594

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26832 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mehroj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shamsuddin Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

The applicant-Mehroj has filed this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the entire proceedings of Case No.1250 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.415 of 2023 (State Vs. Mehroj), under sections 354Kha, 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Nakud, District- Saharanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. No.0415 relates to the alleged occurrence dated 24.11.2023 and as per allegations by the complainant (prosecutrix) the accused/ applicant tried to pull her in her house, when she was walking past his house for purchasing some household articles, who was rescued by Kayum, Riyaz and Shakeel. According to learned counsel, as per the first version, the case was registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under section 354-B IPC, but later on, the offence punishable under section 376 IPC has been added. Learned counsel submits that the version contained in the FIR was reiterated by victim in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., but in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she has made material changes and introduced the allegations of rape, which also resulted in her pregnancy on two occasions. According to the learned counsel, this is apparent misuse of the process of law, therefore, interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶8

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the challenge on behalf of applicant is confined only to the introduction of offence punishable under section 376 IPC as he does not press his claim for quashing of FIR registered under section 354-B IPC. Learned counsel as further drawn the attention of the Court to the final report dated 01.03.2024 filed under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and pointed out that despite material variation in the statement of the prosecutrix the applicant has been sent to face trial for both the offences i.e. punishable under sections 354-B and 376 IPC.

¶9

Mr. Shamshuddin Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant has fairly stated that approximately two weeks back the charges against the petitioner have been framed by the trial Court, but neither the said order has been challenged nor he has seen the said order. There is nothing on record to indicate that the argument addressed before this Court regarding the altered stand of the prosecutrix was addressed before the trial Court when the accused was heard for the purpose of framing of charges. The subsequent development of framing of charges by the trial Court must be recording prima facie satisfaction for framing charges against the accused for the alleged commission of offence punishable under section 376 IPC as well, but the said order is not before this Court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise the inherent powers at this stage.

¶10

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of this case, the application is hereby dismissed. However, a liberty is granted to the applicant to avail alternate remedy against the order framing charges.

¶11

Order Date :- 2.12.2024 Shiv

¶12

Digitally signed by :- SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mehroj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehroj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mithun Balmik vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kshetrapal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Chandra Ram vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Iqrar Ahmad vs State of Up and 2 Others

Satya Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Avsab Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another