Dheeraj Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Dheeraj Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim relief: notice to respondent nos. 2 to 4; operation of the impugned summoning order dated 13.01.2025 and the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 845/2024 stayed until further orders; matter listed on 03.04.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 482 merits consideration where the impugned summoning order was allegedly passed in a cursory and casual manner without due consideration of the victim's statements, which contain no allegation of attempt to rape.

Court's answer

A perusal of the impugned order prima facie shows that it was passed in a cursory and casual manner without due consideration of the victim's statements, wherein no allegation of attempt to rape has been made.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the discussions above and the Apex Court's judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the matter prima facie requires consideration.

Key takeaways

Notice was issued to respondent nos. 2 to 4, and until further orders the operation of the impugned summoning order dated 13.01.2025 and the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 845/2024 shall remain stayed; matter listed on 03.04.2025.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 16 — Application U/S 482 No. 1458 of 2025, Dheeraj Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and others (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J., order dated 19.02.2025): Interim order. Hearing an application under Section 482 concerning Complaint Case No. 845/2024 (Seema Mishra v. Dheeraj Mishra and Others) under Sections 376/511/504/506 IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Chanda, District Sultanpur, arising from a family partition dispute, the Court noted that the complainant's statement contained no allegation of attempt to commit rape, that the police report dated 21.08.2023 indicated no such incident took place, and that the impugned summoning order dated 13.01.2025 appeared to have been passed in a cursory and casual manner without due consideration of the victim's statements. Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court held the matter prima facie required consideration, issued notice to respondent nos. 2 to 4, and stayed the operation of the summoning order and the complaint proceedings until further orders, listing the matter on 03.04.2025.

Court No. - 16

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1458 of 2025 Applicant :- Dheeraj Mishra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

Counsel for Applicant :- J.P. Shukla,Amrish Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State.

Issue notice to respondent no. 2 to 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Petitioner No. 2 and the complainant’s father-in-law are real brothers. Petitioner No. 1 is the son of Petitioner No. 2, while Petitioner No. 3 is his wife. It is further submitted that a family dispute regarding partition between petitioner no. 2 and brother-in-law of the complainant. A partition suit, titled Vijay Krishna vs. Udai Krishna, was filed by the complainant’s father-in-law before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lambhua, District Sultanpur. The partition has been decided vide order dated 02.05.2023. An appeal against that order has been filed before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, which is still pending disposal. The questionnaire is on record.

It has been further submitted that the impugned complaint case has been filed by respondent no. 2 only to wreck vengeance. Furthermore, the police report dated 21.08.2023, which is on record, indicates that no such incident took place. The Pradhan of the concerned village has also not supported the prosecution case. The impugned complaint case has been initiated merely because petitioners no. 1 and 3 objected when the complainant’s father, Vivek Krishna, attempted to take possession of the disputed land in the presence of Lekhpal and the police team.

Even in the complainant’s statement before the Court, there is no allegation of attempt to commit rape. The learned court below, while passing the impugned order has failed to consider this aspect.

Learned AGA has opposed the petition, however, could not dispute the fact that in the statement of the victim, there is no allegation of attempt to rape.

Perused the record, so also the impugned order as well as statement of the victim, statement of other witnesses and the complaint.

A perusal of the impugned order prima facie shows that it has been passed in a cursory and casual manner without due consideration of the victim’s statements, wherein no allegation of attempt to rape has been made.

Thus, in view of the discussions made herein above as well as judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the matter, prima facie, requires consideration.

List on 03.04.2025.

Until further orders of this Court, the operation of the impugned summoning order dated 13.01.2025, as well as the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 845/2024, Seema Mishra vs. Dheeraj Mishra and Others, under Sections 376/511/504/506 IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Chanda, District Sultanpur, shall remain stayed.

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 R.C.

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench