Disposed

Chitrapal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2025A482/782/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of two sessions trials under Sections 363, 366 IPC arising from an alleged elopement case. The court did not decide the petition; it directed police, district judge, trial court and Registrar to file reports on the charge-sheet and cognizance order, kept non-bailable warrants in abeyance, directed clubbing of trials and discharge or framing of charges, and listed the mat

What the court decided

AI extract

Chitrapal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 782 of 2025

¶3

Chitrapal And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amar Bahadur Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 82

¶9

HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to correct the typographical error in the prayer with regard to the Sessions Trial number within the course of the day.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause of the application.

¶12

The relief which has been mentioned in the application is delineated below:-

¶13

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 08 of 2020 (State Vs. Chitra Pal and another) alongwith Session Trial No. 51 of 2021 (State Vs. Sanju @ Sanjay) arising out of Case Crime No. 448 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal, pending in the Court of District and Sessions Judge Sambhal situated at Chandausi."

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no. 2 (alleged accused) and applicant No. 3 (victim) are residing as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, two children have been born and they are residing peacefully without any grievance.

¶15

Regarding the alleged incident of elopement of applicant no. 3 with one

¶16

A482 No. 782 of 2025

¶17

¶18

Sunil, son of Thakurdas, as mentioned in the F.I.R.. The F.I.R. was lodged as Case Crime No. 448 of 2019 against the alleged accused Sunil by the father of the victim. Thereafter, the alleged victim, namely Saraswati, was produced before the Court of the concerned Judicial Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in her statement, she has categorically stated that she eloped with Sanju @ Sanjay and she went along with Sanju alias Sanjay (applicant no. 2) and Chitrapal (applicant no. 1) with her own consent. She has also stated her age as 18 years and the same has also been mentioned in the ossification report of the Chief Medical Officer (C.M.O.), Sambhal, U.P., confirming her age as 18 years. Therefore, no offence under the POCSO Act is made out, as the victim is not a minor below 18 years.

¶19

The Investigating Officer prepared the police report/charge-sheet on 18.05.2020 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., ignoring the statement of the victim and the medical certificate issued by the C.M.O., Sambhal regarding her age. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi thereafter took cognizance of the offence mentioning that he had perused the case diary and other documents and registered the case and thereafter committed the entire case to the Court of Session. At present, the case is pending as Session Trial No. 08 of 2020 (State v. Chitra Pal and another) and Session Trial No. 51 of 2021 (State v. Sanju @ Sanjay), arising out of Case Crime No. 448 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal, pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal situated at Chandausi.

¶20

The Superintendent of Police, Sambhal is directed to go through the entire case diary and find out whether the police report/charge-sheet should be filed under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., as the victim has denied the allegations made in the First Information Report in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by a Judicial Magistrate and she has also stated her age as 18 years and which is also supported by the ossification report of the C.M.O., Sambhal, U.P. Thus, the Investigating Officer has misused his authority which has been provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as he is under obligation to discharge his duty in accordance with law, otherwise, treating it as a State matter. This

¶21

A482 No. 782 of 2025

¶22

¶23

Court finds that the officer has violated the fundamental right of the applicants provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law.

¶24

The District Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi is directed to seek an explanation from the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who has taken cognizance without verifying the evidence contained in the case diary, although he has mentioned in the cognizance order bearing on the charge-sheet that he has gone through the entire case diary and other documents before taking cognizance.

¶25

The trial Court is directed to go through the entire contents/evidence of the case diary before framing of charge. The Sessions Trial Court is directed to pass an order of discharge or framing of charge against the accused in accordance with law immediately.

¶26

The Sessions Judge shall also submit his report in respect of the Sessions Trial as well as obtaining a report from the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused persons.

¶27

Learned Additional Government Advocate, Shri Pankaj Tripathi, is directed to obtain a report from the Superintendent of Police, Sambhal, who shall obtain a report from the concerned Investigating Officer, the then Station House Officer who has forwarded the charge-sheet and also from the concerned Circle Officer who has forwarded the entire case diary to the court of the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking cognizance and, if required, he shall take necessary action.

¶28

The Registrar (Compliance), High Court, Allahabad is directed to obtain the explanation from the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who has passed the cognizance order in Case Crime No. 448 of 2019 as he has also not mentioned his name and ID below the order of taking cognizance, which appears on the front page of the charge-sheet i.e. at page No. 38 of the paper book. A report shall also be obtained from the concerned Sessions Trial Court regarding why the order for discharge or framing of charge has not been taken yet.

¶29

A482 No. 782 of 2025

¶30

¶31

13. Put up this case as fresh on 20.11.2025.

¶32

The non-bailable warrants issued in both the aforesaid Sessions Trials shall be kept in abeyance and the trial Court is directed to proceed for discharge or framing of charges in accordance with law. Applicant no. 1 Chitrapal and applicant no. 2 Sanju @ Sanjay are directed to remain present at the time of framing of charges.

¶33

Learned counsel for the applicants shall communicate this order to the Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi.

¶34

The Sessions Trial Court is also directed to club both the cases together and discharge the accused or frame the charge in accordance with law.

¶35

(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)

¶36

November 10, 2025

¶37

K.Tiwari

¶38

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chitrapal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chitrapal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kalaam Urf Abul Kalaam and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Avanish Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalyan Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitesh Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Balakram vs State of U.P. and Another