Dismissed

Vinod Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024A482/28778/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings under Sections 376/506 IPC arising from FIR alleging rape of the informant by her husband's brother-in-law. The court held no cognizable-error or jurisdictional defect was shown and declined to examine factual issues at this stage; the application was consigned to record.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182054

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28778 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vinod Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

¶7

The applicant herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the applicant arising out of Criminal Case No. 73816 of 2023 as well as case crime no.158 of 2023, State Vs. Vinod Chauhan, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, P.S. Mardah, District Ghazipur pending before the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division Fast Track Court, Court No.2, Ghazipur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report stood lodged against the applicant by the informant-opposite party no. 2 relatable to the commission of the offense on 09.06.2023 and on 25.08.2023 being FIR No. 158 of 2023, under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC with an allegation that the informant got married with one Manoj Kumar Chauhan and on 09.06.2023 when she was in her in-laws place then the brother-in-law of the husband of the opposite party No.2, informant committed an offense purported to be under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC while outraging the modesty of the applicant. It is also being sought to be argued that as per the

¶9

version contained in the first information report, the opposite party No.2 on 11.06.2023 left her in-laws place and went to her matrimonial house and post marriage with Manoj Kumar Chauhan, she only stayed for 20 days. It is also being contended that there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the first information report and further on 21.07.2023, there happened to be a compromise between the Manoj Kumar Chauhan and the opposite party No.2 with regard to certain matrimonial dispute and further prior to lodging of the first information report, proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act stood initiated by the husband of the opposite party no.2.

¶10

Submission is that as per the version in the FIR on 09.06.2023, there was a religious ceremony going on in the house, thus, at that point of time, it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 2, first informant was alone. Reference has been made to the order dated 02.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No.3013 of 2024 wherein the applicant herein was granted anticipatory bail, noticing the said fact.

¶11

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the version contained in the first information report as well as in the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. totally co-relate with the alleged offence as there has been no major contradictions which stands surfaced. Contention is that in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this Court is not required to delve into factual issues, particularly, when the trial is not commenced. It is, thus, contended that whatever argument, the learned counsel for the applicant seeks to raise are factual which cannot be gone into, particularly, when this Court is not required to preempt an issue which is yet to come to surface after

¶12

recording of testimony.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the opinion that the present case is not a fit case wherein interference is warranted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the simple reason that what is to be seen at the stage is the fact as to whether a cognizable offence is made out and that stands corroborated by the statement under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. In absence of pointing out of any jurisdictional error, this Court is not required to go into the factual issues as it would amount to usurping the jurisdiction.

¶14

Accordingly, the present application stands consigned to record .

¶15

It is always open for the applicant to prefer any application which is maintainable under law and in case such an application either for discharge/ bail if maintainable is preferred then his Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with the law of the land subject to any legal impediment.

¶16

Order Date :- 21.11.2024 A. Prajapati

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vinod Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harun Khan vs State of Up and 7 Others

Ayesha Rafi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ranjani Devi vs State of Up and 2 Others

Nazibunnisha and 2 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

C/M Ram Manohar Lohia Mahavidyalaya and Another vs State of Up and 5 Others

Jasveer Singh @ Amit vs State of U.P. and Another