Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2242
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajul Bhargava, J.
Ajay Katara - Applicant
Vs.
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 No. 41533 of 2019
Decided On : 16-12-2019
For the Applicant :Vimlendu Tripathi,Ajay Kumar Srivastava
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Santosh Kumar Yadav
The main legal point established is that the court can quash criminal proceedings if they are found to be an abuse of process of law and lack sufficient evidence to establish the alleged offences.
Headnote:
ABUSE OF PROCESS - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - [Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C.] - The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicant, citing abuse of process of law and lack of evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 376 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a charge-sheet against the applicant and others for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. based on the victim's statements. The victim alleged kidnapping and rape, but key details such as date, time, and the accused's identity were vague and unverified.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings against the applicant were an abuse of process of law and lacked evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 376 I.P.C.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's statements, the lack of corroborative evidence, and the potential abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of reliable evidence and the vague nature of the victim's statements warranted the quashing of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Misc. Application (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) and quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Brajesh Sahai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, Sri Andleeb Naqvi, Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav, Sri Pradeep Kumar, counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning and cognizance order dated 3.1.2019 passed by learned A.C.J.M.-II, Budaun and supplementary Charge-sheet No.163A dated 5.12.2018 in Case No.410 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.443 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Sehaswan, District Budaun, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Budaun as well as all consequential proceedings.
3. Be it noted, at this juncture as is observed in the order dated 21.11.2019 that since the learned Senior counsel appearing for opposite party no.2, learned Additional Advocate General and learned Additional Government Advocate have categorically stated that they do not intend to file any response/counter affidavit in the present application and therefore, the averments made in the application stands unrebutted and the Court is left with no other option but to accept the averments made in the application as it is to be correct on its face value.
4. The brief facts leading to the present application are that the opposite party no.2, Bhagwan Singh, who is Yadav by caste lodged a first information report on 28.6.2013 at 4:45 P.M. with the allegations that his daughter/victim R (name not being disclosed) aged about 12 years and student of class 6th had come home from her paternal grandfather's house to spend summer holidays. On 23.6.2013 at about 6 P.M. his daughter went to attend call of nature where from she was enticed away by her cousin brother, Sukhpal, real sister of Sukhpal namley Smt. Chetaniya, Jaiwahan husband of Chetaniya, Shyam Singh brother of Sukhpal after enticing and terrorising her kidnapped her. When she did not return home for long, a frantic search was made and the first informant was told by persons of his village namely Durgesh and Chote that aforesaid five named accused have been seen taking his daughter along with them. Subsequently, victim R and four others filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15345 of 2013 (Smt. Rinki and 4 others vs. State of U.P. And 2 others) before this Court and vide order dated 31.7.2013 the Court stayed the arrest of named accused. The said writ petition was however dismissed as in fructuous vide order dated 1.5.2014 as the charge-sheet was laid against Sukhpal for kidnapping a minor girl. Be it noted that the other named accused who are closely related to Sukhpal were exonerated during investigation.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant and other co-accused are neither named in the first information report nor any suspicion was laid on them, however, pursuant to the orders of the Court in the aforesaid writ petition the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 22.8.2013 wherein she has stated that she loved Sukhpal and had gone with him and got married in a temple at Ghaziabad where they started leading a married life as husband and wife. There she met one Ajay Katara and he took both of them to Ashok Vatika Sahibabad where he raped her. She has also stated that Sukhpal had made physical relations with her consent. It is also pertinent to note here that the victim did not disclose any date and time of the alleged rape by Ajay Katara and besides him she did not state that anyone else had also raped her. The parentage and residence of Ajay Katara was also not disclosed. She and Sukhpal somehow escaped from there.
6. The victim was produced before the C.J.M. for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On the same day in whi
