Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2024A482/32589/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 application challenging a discharge order, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition. The court held that the lower court was justified in rejecting the discharge application as it was satisfied prima facie that the alleged offence under Sections 376(D), 323, 452, and 506 IPC had been made out.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:185967

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32589 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party no.1 State.

¶7

In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.2 stand dispensed with.

¶8

In pursuance of direction issued earlier, short counter affidavit filed today in Court on behalf of State is taken on record.

¶9

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.293 of 2023(Old No.1169 of 2023) (State versus Binde Manvendra and Anr.) arising out of Crime No.183 of 2023, under Section 376(D), 323,452, 506 IPC, Police Station Gursarai, District Jhansi whereby discharge application preferred by the applicant has been rejected.

¶10

The first information report was lodged against applicant and co-accused under Section 376 (D), 452, 323 and 506 IPC pertaining to an incident said to have taken place on 03.08.2023 at about 11.30 P.M. when the informant was sleeping in her house alongwith her grand mother. As per allegation levelled, the applicant alongwith co-accused knocked on the door of the house seeking water but as soon as the grand mother opened the door, the accused barred into the house and took out the victim taking her nearby and committed gang rape upon her.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is serious contradiction in the prosecution story in the

¶12

first information report and statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. particularly since in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the alleged victim has not indicated applicant having committed rape upon her. Learned counsel has also adverted to the medical examination report to submit that no internal or external injury was found on the victim thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution story.

¶13

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant with the submission that the impugned order has been passed after considering not only the content of FIR and statement of victim but also independent witnesses who have corroborated the prosecution story. It is submitted that at the stage of framing of charge and considering of discharge application, only a prima facie satisfaction is required to be recorded by the Court concerned as has been done. It is also submitted that the medical examination was conducted after one week of incident.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order, it is evident that the discharge application has been rejected considering the contents of first information report and statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the order also adverts to statements recorded by independent witnesses such as Kashiram, Mulchand and Smt. Pankunar who are said to have substantiated the prosecution version.

¶15

The impugned order also adverts to various judgments passed by Supreme Court as well as by this Court to the effect that at the stage of framing of charge and consideration of discharge application, only a prima facie satisfaction is required to be recorded by the court concerned.

¶16

The judgements as indicated in the impugned order are squarely applicable in the facts and

¶17

circumstances of the case whereby a prima facie satisfaction has been recorded by the Court concerned with regard to sections imputed against the applicant. There does not appear to be any error in the reasoning indicated in the impugned order.

¶18

In view of aforesaid facts and discussions, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merits is dismissed .

¶19

Order Date : - 27.11.2024 Subodh/-

¶20

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

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar 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

Om Prakash Prasad Vs Cane Commissioner U.P. Lko. and Another

Poonam Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Bharti Rathour Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Bhishmpal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Narayan Gupta vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication Govt. of India New Delhi and 2 Others

Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Communication Govt. New Delhi and 2 Others