Dismissed¶32

Ramlotan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2025A482/1658/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash rejection of final report and 'State Case' treatment; FIR Case Crime No. 733/2023 under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Sitapur, lodged 20.11.2023 on Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application of victim; victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; Criminal Revision No. 98/2024 dismissed by Sessions Judge, Sitapur on 24.01.2025; Section 528 BNSS invoked for State; applicant Ramlotan; opposite parties State of U.P. and Rajmani (victim); Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Saurabh Lavania, J.; decided 10.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

At this stage no interference in the impugned orders is required, and accordingly the Section 482 application stands rejected. ¶32

Ramlotan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14459

¶2

Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1658 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramlotan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Narendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A.-I for State-opposite party.

¶5

The instant application has been filed seeking the following main relief:-

¶6

"to quash/set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Criminal Revision No.98/2024 as well as order dated 03.07.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Criminal Misc. Case No.97/2024 (State Versus Ram Lotan) arising out of case crime no.733/2023 u/s 376, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali District Sitapur, contained as Annexure No. 1&2 to this application."

¶7

Vide impugned order dated 03.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 97/2024 State Versus Ram Lotan, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur (in short "Magistrate") rejected the final report and treated the same as 'State Case'.

¶8

Impugned order dated 03.07.2024, being relevant, is extracted hereinunder :-

¶9

" ददनननक – 03.07.2024

¶10

पतनवललपपशहहई।वनददनलदनरनहनजजरअदनलतआकरपनररननपतमयशपरपत पसत करकरनदकयनगयनहहदकवहउपररकवनदकनवनददनलमतकदमनहहतरन पतजलसदवभनगममआरकलकपपदपरतहननतहह।उपररकवनदकनअदभयतकरनमलरटन भलपनजररनलकपसनरहलपतजलसदवभनगममआरकलकपपदपरतहननतरन।अदभयतक रनमलरटननपपनजररनलकनएकफरटरएदडटकरकपजजसममचपहरनपनजररनलकनतरनगलप कपनलचपकनदहससनदकसलददसरपकनरन , पनजररनलकरददखनकरसटनफममवनयरलकरनप ककधमककदपनपलगन।इसलकनरणपनजररनलकरबलपकमपजलनगकपजररयपददनननक – 29.04.2023 करसलतनपतरबससटनपससरतहरटलरनजममबतलनयनऔरउसकपसनर जबरदसतलबलनतकनरदकयनतरनकहनदकयदददकसलसपकहनतरफरटरकरवनयरल करकपजननसपमरवनददनगन। " इसपरउसनपउचचनजधकनररनयरसपममजखकतमरपर दशकनयतकक , परनततकरईकनयरवनहलनहहहहई।करईकनयरवनहलनहरनपपरउसनप पतजलसअधलककसलतनपतरवअनयउचचनजधकनररनययकरजलजखतरपसपदशकनयतदल , जजसपरकरईकनयरवनहलनहरनपपरउसनपएकपनररननपतअनतगरतधनरन - 156 (3) द०प०सन०कपअनतगरतनयनयनलयममपसत दकयन , जजसपरनयनयनलयदनरन अदभयरगपनजलककतकरनपकनआदपशपनररतदकयनगयन।जजसपरपरमसदचननररपरटर दजरककगयलतरनपनजररनलकनबयननअनतगरतधनरन - 164 द०प०सन०दववपचकदनरन जलयनगयन , जजसममपनजररनलनपउपररकघटननसपसमबसनधतसभलतथययकरबतनयन। उकवनदकपदववपचकवअनयदवभनगलयअजधकनरलपनजररनलपरसतलहकरनपहपततदबनव डनलनपलगप।अजधकनररययनपकहनमनमलनपतजलसदवभनगकनहह , दवभनगकककनफक बदननमलहरगल , ततमहनरपजलएअचछनयहलहरगनदकमनमलपकररफनदफनकरलर।इस

¶11

परउसकपमननकरनपपरदववपचकवअजधकनररनययनपपदवरदनयरजजतषडय न तकपतहत दववपचकनपपनजररनलकपसनकययकरसहलतरलकपसपसनकजलतनकरकपमनमननपढनग / उचचनजधकनररनयरकपदबनवममआकरवगलततथययकपआधनरपरदववपचननकरकप पनजररनलकपउपररकवनदममआधनरहलनअसनतमररपरटरपसत करदल।पनजररनलकप बयननअनतगरतधनरन - 164 द०प०सन०कपकरनयसपपरमदषयनअपरनधसरनदपत हरतनहह।पनररननककगयलहहदकपतजलसदनरनपपदषतअसनतमआखयनदनरसतकरकप अदभयतकरनमलरटनकपदवरदसमतदचतकनयरवनहलकरनपककककपनकरम।

¶12

पतनवललमपअवलरकनसपसपषहरतनहहदकपनजररनलदनरनपनररननपतअनतगरतधनरन 156(3) द०प०सन०कपमनधयमसपअदभयतकरनमलरटनकपदवरदधनरन - 376, 504, 506 भन०द०सन०ममपरमसदचननररपरटरपनजलककतकरनयनगयनहह।दववपचकदनरनइस आधनरपरअसनतमआखयनपपदषतदकयनगयनहहदकवनददनलमतकदमनदनरन कपतनजधकनरल , पतजलसअधलककसलतनपतरकरददयपगयपआवपदनककजजचममआरयपयकक पतदषनहहहहई।दववपचननकपदमरननघटननसपसमबसनधतकरईभलदचदकतसलयसनकय पनपनहहहरपनयन , कययदकवनददनलनपअपनलअनदरनलजननचकरननपसपमननकर ददयन।अदभयतककपदवरदघटननकनररतकरनपकपकरईसनकयनहहदमलपनयपहह। दववपचकदनरनदववपचननकपउपरननतउकमनमलपममअसनतमआखयनसन० - 06/2024 ददनननदकत – 29.01.2024 दनजखलककगयलहह।उपररकअनदतमआखयनकपदवरद वनददनलदनरनयहपनररननपतपसत दकयनगयनहह।

¶13

मनननलयउचचतमनयनयनलयनपगनगनधरवजननरदनमनतपबननममहनरनषषरनजयवअनय 2005 (1) जप०आई०सल०पष 202 सतपलमकरटरनपसपषरपसपअवधनररतदकयनहह दकअसनतमररपरटरपनपहरनपपरमजजसटषपटकरदनममजलजखतदवकलपपनपह ह -

¶14

1- पतजलसदनरनपहहनचलदनषकषरसपसहमतहरतपहहएअसनतमआखयनसवलकनरकर सकतनहह , परनततऐसननकरनपसपपदवरवनदलमतकदमनकरसतनवनईकनअवसरपदनन करपगन।

¶15

2- वहधनरन 190 ( ए ), ( बल ) कपअनतगरतपतजलसदनरनपहहनचपदनषकषरसपसहमतहरतप हहएआदपदशकनजनरलकरसकतनहह।जहननवहसनततषहरजनतनहहदकदववपचनन अदभकरणदनरनखरजदकयपगयपतथयआगपकनयरवनहलकरनपकनपयनरपआधनरहह।

¶16

3- वहअदगमदववपचननकनआदपशकरसकतनहह।

¶17

4- वहधनरन 190 (1) ( ए ) कपअनतगरतदवररधयनदचकनकरपररवनदमननतपहहए पसनजननलपनपकनदनणरयलपसकतन।

¶18

ममनपपतजलसदनरनपसत समसतपपतयएवनवनददनलदनरनददयपगयपपपतयकन अवलरकनदकयन।

¶19

मनमलपकपतथयएवनपररससरदतययकरददषगतरखतपहहएमपरपदवचनरसपवनददनलदनरन पसत परटपसटदपटलशनकरमत०अ०सन० - 733/2023 सरकनरबननमरनमलरटन अनतगरतधनरन - 376, 504, 506 भन०द०सन०रनननकरतवनललजजलनसलतनपतरकप रपममसटपटकपसकपरपममपनजलककतदकयनजनननउदचतहरगन।अनदतमआखयन तदनतसनरदनसतनररतककजनतलहह।कनयनरलयकरदनदरदशतदकयनजनतनहहदकपसत परटपसटदपटलशनकरसटपटकपसकपरपममदजरकरम। "

¶20

Vide impugned order dated 24.01.2025, Session Judge, Sitapur (in short "revisional Court") dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 98/2024 (Ramlotan Vs. Rajmani & Ors.) instituted by the accused/applicant challenging the order dated 03.07.2024.

¶21

Impugned orders have been challenged on the ground that neither the Magistrate or the revisional Court took note of the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") including the

¶22

document filed in support thereof.

¶23

Learned AGA opposed the present application. He stated that no interference is required in this case as a conjoint reading of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. preferred by the victim/opposite party no.2 based upon which the FIR was lodged on 20.11.2023 as Case Crime No. 733/2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and the statement(s) of the victim/opposite party no.2 recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. would show that the victim/opposite party no.2 remained intact at all the stages and taking note of the facts indicated by the victim/opposite party no.2, the, statement(s) of other witnesses were recorded by the prosecution are liable to be ignored and the impugned orders are not liable to be interferred by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 BNSS.

¶24

It is also stated that the statements of the raped victim are as good as the statements of the injured witnesses and such type of statements are not liable to be ignored particularly at this stage of proceeding unless exceptional circumstances exist.

¶25

It is also stated that the report of the SHO, Mahila Thana, Sitapur, annexed as Annexure No. 4, also supports the case of the victim as the same indicates that the applicant and the victim/opposite party no.2 were in relationship. The conclusion drawn by the SHO concerned is extracted herein-under:

¶26

" जननचदनषकषरह - जनजचकपदमरननउकपकरणममसवरसम म बसनधतकपअनदकतदकयपगयप अदभकरनयसपपनयनगयनदकमदहलनआरकलरनजमनलरनननसकरनवआरकल रनमलमटनरनननतमबमरममवषर 2021 सपतहननतहह।इससपपदवरममदरनयकमरएकसनर 2019 ममरनननरनमकरटममदनयतकरहपहह।मदहलनआरकलरनजमनलदनरनददनननक 19.08.2023 करमहरदयकपसमकपसत हरकरआरकलरनमलमटनकपदवरदएक दशकनयतलपनररननपतपसत सनर करतपहहयपआरकलरनमलमटनपरउसकप जबरदसतलशनरलररकसमबनधबनननपकनआररपलगनतपहहयपकननदनलकनयरवनहलकरनप कनअनतररधदकयनगयनहह।

¶27

पशनगतदशकनयतककगमभलरतनकपददषगतपभनरलदनरलककतमबमरवअनयकदमरयय वअनयगवनहयसपउकसनदभरममपदछतननछकरबयननदजरदकयपगयपतरदरनयकदमरयय कपमधयआपसममएकददसरपकपसमपकरममहरनपककपतदषनहहहहयल।

¶28

बयननकपअनतसनरमदहलनआरकलरनजमनलऔरआरकलरनमलमटनककरनननरनमकरट ककदनयतदककपदमरननआपसममबनतचलतहरतलरल , दरनयकदमरययकनरनननरनमकरट सपसरननननतरणअलगअलगरनननसकरनवतमबमरहरजननपकपउपरननतबनतचलत नहहहरतलरल।मदहलनआरकलरनजमनलकपमरबनइलनन० 9569240051 वआरकल रनमलमटनकपमर०नन० 8303013914 कपसल०डल०आर०पनपकरअवलरकनसप उभयपकयममआपसमम 25 अपहल 2023 सपशतरहरकरकरलब 15 ददनतकबनतचलत हहयलहह। 25 अपहल 2023 करमदहलनआरकलरनजमनलदनरनहलपहललकजलआरकल रनमलमटनकरदकयनगयनहह।जयनदनकजलपमदहलनआरकलदनरनहलआरकलरनमलमटन ककदकयनगयनहह।सल०डल०आर०कपअवलरकनसपयहभलजनतहहआदकम०आ० रनजमनलवआरकलरनमलमटनददनननक 29.04.2023 करशनमकपसमयकतछसमयकप जलएदमलपरप।घटननवनलपददनभलम०आ०दनरनहलआरकलरनमलमटनकरपरमबनर कजलदकयनगयनहह।

¶29

म०आ०रनजमनलदनरनआरकलरनमलमटनपरलगनयपगयपआररपकनददनननकवघटनन

¶30

सरलम०आ०दनरनसपषनहहदकयनगयन , परनततयहबतनयनगयनदकघटननकपसमय म०आ०रनननसकरनसपमत०अ०सन० 125/23 ककपलदडतनकनमपदडकल , बयनन करननपहपततसलतनपतरआयलहहयलरल , जजसददनपलदडतनककसतपतदरगलहहयलहहघटननउसल ददनककबतनयलहहवघटननसरलबसअडपकपपनसदकसलहरटलममहरननबतनयनहह। बसअडपकपआसपनससपसभलहरटलयममजनकरहरटलयकरचहकदकयनगयनऔर आसपनसकपदतकननदनरयसपपदछतननछककगयलतरआरकलरनमलमटनवम०आ० रनजमनलकपहरटलममजननपकनकरईपमनणनहहदमलनऔरननहलकरईसलसलटलवल फतटपजहह।हरटलकपसनचनलकरसपभलवनतनरककगयलतररनजमनलऔररनमलमटनकप हरटलममआनपजननपसपइनकनरदकयनगयन।

¶31

म०आ०दनरनददयपगयपदशकनयतलपनररननपतममदजरदकयपगयपअदभकरनय , बयनन गवनह , अवलरकनसल०डल०आर०सपपनयनगयनदकदरनरकदमरययममआपसममफरन कपमनधयमआपसलसहमतलसपबनतचलतहरतलरल।ददनननक 29.04.2023 कप अवलरकनसल०डल०आर०वबयननआरकलरनमलमटनसपदरनरकदमरययकनबसअडप कपपनसकतछसमयकपजलएदमलननपमनदणतहहपरनततम०आ०दनरनहरटलममजननन वबलनतकनरकरनपककपतदषनहहहहई। "

¶32

Taking note of the aforesaid as also particularly the statement(s) of the victim/opposite party no.2 recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that at this stage no interference in the impugned orders is required. Accordingly, the application is rejected .

¶33

Order Date :- 10.3.2025/Mohit Singh/-

¶34

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramlotan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramlotan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devendra Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Naresh Rajan @ Naresh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Upendra Kumar Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko. and Another

Patiraj Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others