Shivam Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74227

Court No. - 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16123 of 2025

Applicant :- Shivam Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Surjeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sheetla Prasad, State Law Officer for the State.

¶7

The present application has been filed to quash the order dated 13.02.2025, chargesheet dated 13.02.2025 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No.145 of 2025, arising out of case crime no.373 of 2023, under Sections-498A, 323, 504, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationKandhrapur, District-Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No.1, Azamgarh.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and he has been falsely implicated on the basis of general and vague allegation regarding harassment and committing rape and natural sex with the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that while framing charge, court below has failed to consider the allegations of rape against the applicant, therefore, impugned order deserve to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra , learned State Law Officer, Sri Sheetla Prasad, has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that at the time of framing charge, court cannot go into the falsity or correctness of the allegations made in the statement recorded during investigation.

¶10

After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that opposite party no.2 in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. & 164 Cr.P.C. made specific allegations of committing the rape upon her by the applicant. At the time of framing of charge, court has to look into the prima facie allegation on the basis of material available on

¶11

record. The court cannot dispute the veracity or falsity of allegation on the basis of material available on record.

¶12

The Apex Court in the case of Bharat Parikh Vs. CBI reported in 2008 (10) SCC 109 has observed that at the time of framing of charge, court can only look into the material produced by the prosecution and cannot look into the matter produced by the accused or other defence.

¶13

This Apex Court again considered the issue in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Mishra reported in (2015) 13 SCC 8 and has observed that at the time of framing charge, subjective satisfaction of court is as to the existence of prima facie case on the basis of material produced as a prosecution.

¶14

In view of the above, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order, framing the charge against the applicant and all defence raised by learned counsel for the applicant would be available to him and can be considered during trial.

¶15

In view of the above, present application is rejected .

¶16

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 S.Chaurasia

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivam Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Singh v. State of U.P. 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