Dismissed

Vijay Pal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2025/10247/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash proceedings for kidnapping and abduction, holding that the ground of non-examination of the victim under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was available in a previous petition which had been dismissed, and thus could not be raised at a subsequent stage.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed

Vijay Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10247 of 2025

¶3

Vijay Pal And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ranvijay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 13

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶10

Certified copy of the order dated 25.10.2011, under challenge, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.184 of 2011 placed before the Court, is taken on record.

¶11

Heard Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Sashi Bhushan Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s):-

¶13

"For the facts and reason and Circumstances mentioned in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court to quash the Order dated 18/09/2025 passed by learned Session Judge F.T.C -1, Sultanpur in ST No 191/2025 U/S 363, 366 I.P.C, PS - Piparpur, Dist. Amethi, State VS Ram Vachan and Others, by which the discharge application has been rejected, which is annexed As Annexure No-1 to this Affidavit and also to quash the present Criminal proceedings in respect of present petitioners from the stage of the order dated 25/11/2010, (Annexure No 4) by which the final report dated 30/9/2009 passed in criminal case No. 184/2011 has been rejected by A.C.J.M. court NO -20 Dist. Sultanpur and case has been converted into complaint case.

¶14

It is also prayed to this Hon'ble Court to discharge to petitioners namely Vijay pal and Sheetala prasad from criminal proceeding initiated by learned Session judge F.T.C-1st, Sultanpur in ST No 191/2025 U/S 363, 366 I.P.C, State VS Ram Vachan and Others.

¶15

It is further prayed to this Hon'ble Court to stay the Criminal proceedings Of ST No 191/2025 U/S 363, 366 I.P.C. State vs Ram Vachan pending before learned Session Judge FTC-1 Sultanpur during pendency of the petition before this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice."

¶16

The brief facts of the case are as under :-

¶17

A482 No. 10247 of 2025

¶18

¶19

(i) An F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No.2 at Police StationPeeparpur, District -Amethi, registered as Case Crime No.465 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. alleging that the accused Ram Bachchan with the help of applicants enticed away the minor daughter of the opposite party No.2, aged about 15 years, in the night of 10/11.02.2009.

¶20

(ii) It is to be noted that the F.I.R. as Case Crime No.465 of 2009 was registered in compliance of the order passed by the competent court of jurisdiction on an application preferred by the opposite party No.2 in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 26.02.2009.

¶21

(iii) The Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") started the investigation and during investigation recovered the victim/daughter of the opposite party No.2 on 30.09.2009 as appears from the record. As on this date i.e. 30.09.2009 the custody of the victim was handed over to the opposite party No.2 which is indicated from the document annexed at page No.26 of the paper book as also from the final report dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure No.3 annexed at page 23), as also from the typed copy of the statement of the victim, on record at page 28 of the paper book, according to which the victim on her own volition left her house on 10/11.02.2009 and reached Patiyala where his father was residing, however, she did not stay with her father.

¶22

(iv) Based upon the statement, aforesaid, recorded by the I.O. in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. alone the I.O. filed charge sheet, though he was under obligation to produce the victim before the Magistrate concerned for recording her statement before the Magistrate in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶23

(v) The final report was opposed by means of the protest application. The Magistrate, thereafter allowed the protest application and set aside the final report and treated the protest application as complaint case vide order dated 25.11.2010. The order dated 25.11.2010 is extracted herein under :-

¶24

" िदनांक - 25.11.10

¶25

प�ावली आदेश हेतु पेश हई / �ाथ� के िव�ान अिधव�ा को पूव� की ितिथ पर सुना जा चुका है तथा प�ावली का अवलोकन िकया ।

¶26

वािदनी फूला देवी की ओर से धारा -156 (3) जा० फौ० तहत िवप�ीगण के िव�� ाथ�ना - प� ��तुत िकया गया। िजस पर �यायालय �ारा सुनवाई करते �ए स�बि�धत थाने को �थम सूचना िरपोट� पजीकृत कर के िववेचना िकये जाने हेतु आदेश पािरत िकया गया। �यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन म� स�बि�धत थाने �ारा ��नगत �करण म� �थम सूचना िरपोट� पंजीकृत करके मामले की िववेचना करते �ए �यायालय के सम� एफ०आर० ��तुत िकया गया। िजसकी सूचना वािदनी को दी गयी। वािदनी �ारा उ� एफ०आर० के िव�� ोटे�ट �ाथ�ना - प� इस आशय का ��तुत िकया गया है िक स�बि�धत थाने की पुिलस �ारा सही ढंग से िववेचना नह� की गयी है बि�क अिभयु�गण के �भाव म� आकर अि�तम िरपोट� �ेिषत कर दी गयी है। तथा यह कहा है िक िदनाक 10.2.09 को राि� म� रामबचन �ािथनी की ल�की को बहला फुसलाकर भगा ले गया रामबचन के साथ 11.00 बजे रात म� जाते �ए कुमारी अनीता को रामसजीवन ने देखा था। �ािथनी अपनी ल�की को दो - तीन िदन तक तलाश िकया िक�तु कही पता नह� चला। िवप�ीगण उसकी ल�की को भगा ले गये है अतः अि�तम िरपोट� को िनर�त करके िवप�ीगण को तलब करने की याचना की गयी है।

¶27

मामले के त�य एवं पिर�थितय� पर िवचार करते �ए ��तुत मामले म� �यायालय �ारा जाँच िकया जाना �यायोिचत

¶28

A482 No. 10247 of 2025

¶29

¶30

होगा। मामला पिरवाद के �प म� दज� िकये जाने यो�य ह�।

¶31

आदेश

¶32

पुिलस �ारा�ेिषत अि�तम िरपोट� िदनांक 30.9.09 िनर�त की जाती है। मामला पिरवाद के �प म� दज� ह� प�ावली वा�ते सा�य धारा -200 द०�०स० िदनांक -3.2.11 को पेश ह� ।"

¶33

(vi) After treating the protest application as complaint case, the Magistrate concerned issued summons to the applicants to face trial for the offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C.

¶34

(vii) The applicants being aggrieved by the process adopted by the Magistrate concerned, approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482/378/407 No.4785 of 2012 (Vijay Kumar Pal and another Vs. The State of U.P. and another) and on 21.12.2012 this Court protected the interest of the applicants. However, subsequently, this application was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2019. The order dated 15.05.2019 is extracted herein under :-

¶35

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶36

2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 20, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.164 of 2011 (subsequent Criminal Case No.156 of 2011) 'Phoola Devi Vs. Ram Bachan' relating to Case Crime No.465 of 2009, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Piparpur, District Amethi and the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Sultanpur whereby Criminal Revision No.112 of 2012 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

¶37

3. After hearing the submissions and perusing the record, I find no ground to interfere with the ongoing proceedings. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶38

4. However, it is directed that in case the petitioners appear/surrender before the court below within 15 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶39

5. It is also directed that if the petitioners are admitted to bail and the case is committed to the Court concerned, they would have liberty to file an application for discharge before the trial Court concerned in conformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C., which shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within two months."

¶40

(viii) After the order dated 15.05.2019, the applicants appeared before the Trial court concerned and were released on bail and thereafter they preferred an application seeking discharge in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C.

¶41

(ix) The discharge application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 18.09.2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.09.2025 is extracted herein under :-

¶42

"3. म�ने उभयप� के िव�ान अिधव�ा के तक� सुना एवं प�ावली का स�यक अवलोकन िकया गया। प�ावली के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक वािदनी मुकदमा फूला देवी �ारा मुकदमा िव�� अिभयु�गण राम बचन वमा� , शीतला �साद व िवजय पाल के िव�� अंतग�त धारा -363,366 भा०दं०सं० , थाना पीपरपुर , सुलतानपुर म�

¶43

A482 No. 10247 of 2025

¶44

¶45

पंजीकृत कराया। िववेचक �ारा उपरो� �करण म� अंितम िरपोट� सं�य -73/2009 िदनांिकत -30.09.2009 संबिधत �यायालय �ेिषत िकया गया िजस पर बािदनी मुकदमा फूला देवी �ारा �ोटे�ट �ाथ�ना प� संबंिधत �यायालय �ेिषत िकया गया िजस पर �यायालय �ारा अपने आदेश िदनांक -25.11.2010 को �ेिषत उ� अितम िरपोट� को िनर�त कर िदया। तदोपरा�त संबंिधत �यायालय �ारा वािदनी मुकदमा �ारा ��तुत �ोटे�ट �ाथ�ना प� को पिरवाद के �प म� पंजीकृत कर अिभयु�गण राम बचन वमा� , शीतला �साद तथा िवजय पाल को अंतग�त धारा -363,366 दं०�०सं० के अंतग�त िवचारण हेतु अपने आदेश िदनांक -22.02.2012 को तलब िकया। वािदनी मुकदमा फूला देवी �ारा अपने बयान अंतग�त धारा 200 दं०�०सं० म� कथन िकया है िक राम बचन वमा� , शीतला �साद जो उसके गांव के तथा िवजय पाल जो उसके प�ोसी गांव के रहने वाले ह� उसकी बेटी पीिडता उ� लगभग 15 वष� को अिभयु� राम बचन �ारा बहला - फुसला कर राि� लगभग 11 बजे भगा ले गया है िजसको उसके जेठ का ल�का राम सजीवन ने देखा था। उ� सा�ी ने �यायालय के सम� सशपथ ये भी बयान िदया है िक मुि�जम िवजय पाल से पूछताछ िकया तो उसने बताया िक राम बचन और शीतला उसकी मोटर साइिकल मांग कर ले गये थे। वह� सा�ी हेमराज �ारा अपने बयान अंतग�त धारा -202- द०�०सं० म� सा�य िदया है िक उसकी चचेरी बहन पीि�ता उ� लगभग 15 वष� उसके पडोसी राम बचन वमा� के साथ जाते �ए उसके चचेरे भाई राम सजीवन ने देखा था। पूछताछ म� पता चला िक मुि�जम िवजय पाल की मोटर साइिकल से मुि�जम राम बचन और मुि�जम शीतला यादव पीि�ता को बैठाकर कह� ले गये ह�।

¶46

4. इस �कार उ� साि�य� �ारा अपने बयान अंतग�त धारा -200 द०�०सं० एवं 202 दं०�०सं० म� अिभयु�गण �ारा कािरत घटना का समथ�न िकया है। यहा ये भी उ�लेखनीय है िक संबिधत �यायालय के तलबी आदेश िदनांिकत 22.02.2012 के िव�� अिभयु�गण �ारा फौजदारी िनगरानी सं�या 112/2012 दािखल िकया गया था िजस पर संबिधत �यायालय �ारा सा�य� के पिरशीलन व मामले के सम�त त�य� एवं पिरि�थितय� पर स�यक �प से िवचार करते �ए ��तुत िनगरानी अपने आदेश िदनांक -17.10.2012 को िनर�त कर िदया गया ।

¶47

5. In Dilwar Balu Kurane versus State of Maharastra (2002) 2 SCC 135 , the principle enunciated in Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal 1979 3 SCC 4 has been reiterated as held that the jurisdiction under section 227 of the Cr.P.C., "judge which under the present code, an experience court, cannot act merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total impact of the evidence and the documents produce before the court, the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. It is however, does not mean that the judge should make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he is conducting a trial. The court is not required to hold a mini-trial at the stage of discharge.

¶48

6. अतः उपयु � िविध �व�था , साि�य� के बयान एवं सम�त अिभयोजन के �प�� के पिरशीलन के उपरा�त उ� �करण म� अिभयु�गण के िव�� थम ��या मामला बनता है एवं अिभयु�गण के िव�� सुसगत धारा� म� आरोप िवरिचत िकये जाने का आधार पया � त है। अिभयु�गण की तरफ से �ेिषत �ाथ�ना प� 5 ख िनर�त िकये जाने यो�य है।

¶49

आदेश

¶50

अिभयु�गण की तरफ से �ेिषत �ाथ�ना प� 5 ख िनर�त िकया जाता है। त�सार आपि� 9 ख िन�तािरत की जाती है। प�ावली वा�ते आरोप के िब�� पर सुनवाई / आरोप िवरचन हेतु िदनांक -30.09.2025 को ��तुत हो। स�बि�धत अिभयोग के सभी अिभयु�गण को िनद�िशत िकया जाता है िक िनयत ितिथ पर �यायालय के सम� �ि�गत �प से उपि�थत होना सुिनि�त कर�। "

¶51

In the aforesaid background of the case, the applicants have filed the present application seeking the relief(s) quoted above.

¶52

For the purposes of causing interference, Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted as under :-

¶53

A482 No. 10247 of 2025

¶54

¶55

(i) That the order passed by the Magistrate dated 25.10.2010 treating the protest application as complaint case is not a speaking order.

¶56

(ii) The victim was not produced before the Magistrate in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and despite this the Magistrate treated the protest application as complaint case and issued the summons to the applicants to face the trial for the offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C.

¶57

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayers sought by applicants.

¶58

Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

¶59

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that no interference is required in the matter. It is for the following reason (s) :-

¶60

(i) The plea of non examination of the victim in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. was available when the applicants approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482/378/407 No.4785 of 2012 (Vijay Kumar Pal and another Vs. The State of U.P. and another) and this application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2019 and therefore this plea/ground, which was available to the applicants at that relevant point of time cannot be raised at the subsequent stage of proceedings, as observed in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1399.

¶61

(ii) The discharge application, on record as Annexure No.8 to the present application, indicates that the same was preferred by the applicants Vijay Kumar Pal S/o Ram Bahor Pal and Sheetala Prasad S/o Gayadeen on the aforesaid plea/ground, which could not be considered in view of aforesaid.

¶62

For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the application. It is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶63

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶64

December 9, 2025 ML/-

¶65

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Pal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Pal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Aafaq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and 5 Others

Chitranshu @ Chitranshu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kant Kumar @ Gulley Yadav and 4 Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pankaj Kumar Kanojia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Ketan Singh @ and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Yuvika Gaur (Minor) Thru. Mother Smt. Tulika Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others