The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition as non-maintainable against an order framing charges under the POCSO and IPC, citing settled law that such orders cannot be challenged through revision.
Petition dismissed as defective; no occasion to frame charges reviewed or altered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 44/2022
Devendra Kumar @ Debu S/o Padam Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Kachchi Basti, Bassi Sitarampura, Panipech, Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Ms. Nidhi khandwal through VC |
|---|---|
| For | : Mr. Imran Khan pp |
| Respondent(s) | Mr. M P Kaswa through VC |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order
04/02/2022
;kph&vfHk;qDr ¼vkxs vfHk;qDr dgk tk,xk½ dh vksj ls ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk fo}ku fof'k"V U;k;ky;] ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] dze&3] t;iqj egkuxj] f}rh; }kjk ls'ku izdj.k la[;k&8@21 esa ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 12-11-21 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls vfHk;qDr dk vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 239 lifBr /kkjk 216 vLohdkj dj fn;k x;kA
(2 of 6) [CRLR-44/2022]
fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr dk rdZ gS fd ftu rF;ksa ls vijk/k cuus dk vkjksi gS] muds laca/k esa ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 ¼vkxs vf/kfu;e] 2012 dgk tk,xk½ ds rgr fofHkUu vijk/kksa esa vkjksi fojfpr fd;k gS] ysfdu mUgha rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds rgr Hkh vkjksi fojfpr fd;s gSa tks fof/kuqlkj vuqer ugha gSA ,d gh vijk/k ds fy, nksgjk n.M vuqKs; ugha gSA Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds rgr vkus okys vijk/kksa dk fopkj.k fof'k"V U;k;ky; }kjk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds rgr tks vkjksi fojfpr fd;s x;s gSa] muls vkjksieqDr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa fd;k fdUrq ;g vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k x;k gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vk{ksfir vkns'k fof/klEer ugha gSA ;kfpdk Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gSA
fo}ku yksd vfHk;sktd }kjk mijksDr rdksaZ dk fojks/k djrs gq, tkfg, fd;k fd oSdfYid vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkuk vuqKs; gSA n.M izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 220¼3½ ,oa 220¼4½ ds vuqlkj Hkh vk{ksfir vkns'k fof/klEer gSA bl izdkj ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ohjsUnz dqekj cuke LVsV o vU;] ,dyihB nkafMd fuxjkuh ;kfpdk la[;k 242@19 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 6-2-19 dk voyksdu fd;k ftlesa bl U;k;ky; dh lgihB }kjk ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh gS fd ,d gh rF; ls ;fn dksbZ vijk/k vf/kfu;e] 2012 ds rgr curk gS vkSj mlesa vkjksi fojfpr fd;s x;s gSa rks mUgha rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij
[CRLR-44/2022]
(3 of 6)
Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk esa of.kZr vijk/kksa dk vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA
tgka rd fof'k"V U;k;ky; }kjk Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds rgr of.kZr vijk/kksa ds fopkj.k dh {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz'u gS] vf/kfu;e] 2012 dh /kkjk 28 ds vuqlkj vf/kfu;e] 2012 esa of.kZr vijk/kksa ds lkFk lkFk ;fn Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk esa of.kZr vijk/k Hkh dkfjr gq, gSa rks mudk fopkj.k djus dh vf/kdkfjrk Hkh fof'k"V U;k;ky; dks gS] vr% fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr }kjk yh x;h izFke vkifRr Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA
n.M izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 220 ¼3½ esa ;g izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn dfFkr dR; vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS rFkk rRle; izHkkoh ,d ls vf/kd ifjHkk"kk esa of.kZr gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ,d gh fopkj.k esa ,sls lHkh vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tk ldrs gSaA blh izdkj /kkjk 220¼4½n.M izfdz;k lafgrk esa ;g izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd tgka ,d ls vf/kd dR; vyx vyx vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrs gSa rFkk os lkjs dR; lkewfgd :i ls ,d vU; vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrs gSa rks mu vijk/kksa ds fy, ,d gh fopkj.k esa iFkd i`Fkd vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tk ldrs gSaA
2017¼1½ RCR (Criminal)233 Gaya Prasad Pal Vs. St. ds ekeys esa fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB }kjk /kkjk 220 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr iSjk&48 esa fuEu izdkj ls fu"d"kZ fn;k gS&
" The third and fourth sub-sections of Section 220 Cr.P.C. quoted above are of special
(4 of 6)
[CRLR-44/2022]
interest here. As demonstrated by the preceding discussion, the acts of commission constituting the offence under Section 354 IPC may also amount to offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act. Similarly, the offence of "penetrative sexual assault" under the POCSO Act would also constitute the offence of rape if the victim is a female human being. In such fact-situation, it is legitimate for the accused to be charged with and tried at one trial both for the offence under Section 354 IPC and also under Section 8 of POCSO Act.
/kkjk 221 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk esa ;g izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd tgka ,d gh dR; vFkok ,d ls vf/kd dR;ksa dh Ja[kyk dh izdfr bl izdkj dh gS fd ;g dR; tks izekf.kr fd;k tkuk gS] ,d ls vf/kd vijk/k esa ls fdl vijk/k esa vko`Rr gksrk gS] bl ckcr lansg gksus ij oSdfYid vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vf/kfu;e] 2012 dh /kkjk 42 esa ;g izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd dksbZ Hkh dR; vFkok yksi tks fd vf/kfu;e] 2012 ds rgr vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS] og dR; vFkok yksi ;fn /kkjk 166&,] 354&,] 354&ch] 354&lh] 354&Mh] 370] 370&,] 375] 376] 376&,] 376&lh] 376&Mh] 376&bZ] 509 Hkkjrh; naM alfgrk rFkk /kkjk 67&ch lwpuk ,oa izkS|ksfxdh vf/kfu;e ds vijk/k gS rks ftl vijk/k esa vf/kd ltk gS] mlesa nafMr fd;k tk ldsxkA
vf/kfu;e] 2012 dh /kkjk 42 dks ns[krs gq, Li"V gS fd ;fn ,d gh d`R; vf/kfu;e] 2012 ds vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS rFkk lkFk lkFk gh Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds vijk/kksa dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS rks ,slk vijk/k izekf.kr gksus ij vf/kfu;e] 2012 vFkok Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk esa of.kZr vijk/k ftlesa vf/kd
(5 of 6)
[CRLR-44/2022]
ltk gS] ls nafMr fd;k tk,xkA Li"V gS fd nafMr mlh le; fd;k tk ldrk gS tc igys ls oSdfYid vkjksi fojfpr fd;s x;s gSaA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk (2017) 10 SCC 800, esa vf/kfu;e 2012 dh /kkjk 42] 42, ds izko/kkuksa ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr iSjk la[;k&79 esa fuEu izdkj ls O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh gS&
"Another aspect of the matter is that the POSCO was enacted by Parliament in the year 2012 and it came into force on 14th November, 2012. Certain amendments were made by Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013, whereby Section 42 and Section 42A, which have been enumerated above, were added. It would be pertinent to note that these amendments in POCSO were brought by the same Amendment Act by which Section 375, Section 376 and other sections of IPC relating to crimes against women were amended. The definition of rape was enlarged and the punishment under Section 375 IPC was made much more severe. Section 42 of POCSO, as mentioned above, makes it clear that where an offence is punishable, both under POCSO and also under IPC, then the offender, if found guilty of such offence, is liable to be punished under that Act, which provides for more severe punishment. This is against the traditional concept of criminal jurisprudence that if two punishments are provided, then the benefit of the lower punishment should be given to the offender. The legislature knowingly introduced Section 42 of POCSO to protect the interests of the child. As the objects and reasons of the POCSO show, this Act was enacted as a special provision for protection of children, with a view to ensure that children of tender age are not abused during their childhood and youth. These children were to be protected from exploitation and given facilities to develop in a healthy manner. When a girl is married at the age of 15 years, it is not only her human right of choice, which is violated. She is also deprived of having an education; she is deprived of leading a youthful life. Early marriage and consummation of child marriage affects the health of the girl child. All these ill effects of early marriage have
(6 of 6) [CRLR-44/2022]
been recognised by the Government of India in its own documents, referred to hereinabove."
gLrxr ekeys esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kfu;e] 2012 ds lkFk lkFk Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds rgr fodYi esa vkjksi fojfpr fd;s x;s gSa] tks fof/kuqlkj vuqKs; gSA U;kf;d n"Vkar ohjsUnz dqekj cuke LVsV ¼mijksDr½ ds ekeys esa oSdfYid vkjksi dh fLFkfr ugha Fkh] vr% rF;ksa esa fHkUurk gksus ds dkj.k mijksDr U;kf;d n"Vkar gLrxr izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrkA
mijksDr foospukuqlkj Li"V gS fd vk{ksfir vkns'k rF; vkSj fof/k ds vuq:i gS] ftlesa gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj izdV ugha gksrk gS] vr% vk{ksfir vkns'k iq"V gksus ,oa ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA
ifj.kker% izLrqr fuxjkuh ;kfpdk ,rn~}kjk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA rn~uqlkj LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
Mittal/18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision petition is maintainable against an impugned order framing charges for offences under the POCSO Act and IPC read together.
Whether Section 42 of the POCSO Act mandates trial under the Act providing more severe punishment when both POCSO and IPC apply.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gaya Prasad Pal Vs. StateReferred¶24
Gaya Prasad Pal Vs St. 233
Supreme Court JudgmentReferred¶33
(2017) 10 SCC 800 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Devendra Kumar @ Debu
State Of Rajasthan
Mahesh Kumar
Uma Shanker Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
