Allowed

Smt. Manju Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024CRLR/1500/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A revision against dismissal of an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking investigation into aggravated sexual assault of the applicant's 11-year-old daughter by three accused. The High Court found the dismissal relied on police reports of old enmity without independent application of mind, set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; revision allowed; matter remitted to trial court to hear afresh the question of issuing process against opposite parties after hearing both sides.

Smt. Manju Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173455

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1500 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Smt. Manju Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Balbir Singh,Shailendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶7

As per office report dated 13.08.2024 notice issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 served on them through mother and that of respondent No.4 through his sister-in-law (bhabi), as communication is received from C.J.M. Agra.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge (POPCSO Act)/ Additional Session Judge, Court No.27, Agra with averments that on 27.10.2022 at around 08:00 am when she had gone to the agriculture field of Ramvilas for doing some manual labour and her husband had also gone in the market. Accused opposite parties Vishnu, Ramnaresh and Hari Shankar had dragged his minor daughter aged about 11 years at around 04:00 pm, when she had gone to bring grass to feed her cow, he took her to a nearby bazara field and molested her, they also inserted a finger in her private part and attempted to commit rape on her. Some persons shouted on hearing shrieks of the child, and thereafter the opposite parties fled away from the place after hurling threats to the victim. They also tried to press her neck with intent to kill her.

¶9

He next submitted that the learned court has dismissed the application vide order dated 14.02.2024 on placing reliance of police report submitted in application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that there is old enmity between the applicant and father of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and the applicant had lodged several FIR's against opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and family member of Ramdeen on one or other grounds. The applicant and husband are quarrel some people and used to file allegations with concocted story.

¶10

He next submitted that learned trial court has failed to realize the legal position that a cognizable offence is made out against the opposite parties on the basis of accusation made in the application, but the court has dismissed the application only on the basis of conjectures and surmises and placing reliance on vague statement of facts in the report submitted by police.

¶11

He lastly submitted that the learned trial court has dismissed the application without realizing the gravity of the allegations in which a girl aged about 11 years has been subjected to sexual assault by the opposite parties.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that the impugned passed by learned court below is preceded by cogent reasons and the factual position brought before the court in the report submitted by police station in which it is stated that the applicant and her husband are used to lodged FIR's and file applications against opposite parties and their family member and on one or other grounds due to long enmity and in this scenario false implication cannot be ruled out.

¶13

On perusal of material on record and averments in application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. it is obvious that a cognizable offence is made out, as per the allegations made therein. There are serious allegations against the opposite parties in application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that they committed aggravated sexual assault against the victim, who is said to be the daughter of the revisionist and was about 11 years of age.

¶14

Learned cousnel below has dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. mainly placing reliance on a report of Police Station that wherein he has stated that the revisionist and husband are habitual in making complaints and lodging FIR against opposite parties due to long standing enmity. Impugned order is not based on independent application of mind and allegations made in application under Section 156(3) C.P.C. filed by the revisionist.

¶15

Consequently keeping in view the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned order not sustainable, as same is vitiated by illegality and deserved to be set-aside.

¶16

Revision is allowed , impugned order dated 13.08.2024 passed by court below is set-aside and the matter is remitted to trial court to hear the matter on question of issuance of process against

¶17

opposites parties as fresh, and set-aside the same in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist and State.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 Ashish/-

¶19

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

Smt. Manju Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manju Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 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