Point of Law
High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mrs. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of case no. 10 of 2020 (State Vs. Ram Milan @ Pintu and others) arising out of case crime no. 301 of 2019, under Sections 323, 328, 376, 120B IPC, Police Station Pipari, District -Kaushambi pending in the court of learned Magistrate, Kaushambi.

3. In short compass, the facts of this case are that FIR of the prosecutrix/opposite party no.2 was registered on 30.07.2019 through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 24.06.2019 with regard to alleged incident dated 21.12.2016 making allegation inter-alia that her father was admitted in P.G.I., Lucknow. She along with her husband (applicant no.2) had gone to see and take care of him on 21.12.2016. On returning in the night at about 9.00 P.M., her husband took her in the house of applicant no.3, where she was stayed in the night. Accused persons fed her at night mixing alcoholic substance in the food, due to which she fell asleep. Next day in the morning when she wake up, she found her in naked condition and accused-applicants were found standing there. It is further alleged that on raising objection by her, she was shown a video by the applicants and threatened that if she will disclose anything, the said video will be uploaded on Whatsapp, Facebook and it will be given to all news channels. It is also alleged that she was afraid and applicant no.3 (Ram Bahadur) used to commit rape upon her in collusion with applicant nos. 1 and 2, because her husband (applicant no.2) was having illicit relation with applicant no.1 (wife of applicant no.3/Ram Bahadur). It is also alleged that on 25.05.2019, when she was alone in her house, the applicants along with unknown persons came there and insisted her to have sex with that unknown persons. On making resistance, she was beaten by them and thereafter on 26.05.2019 she went to her Maika saving her life and told her mother what had happened with her. It is also mentioned that on 3.6.2019 information about the said incident was given by prosecutrix/opposite party no.2 personally to Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi as well as other officers, sending her application by registered post, but no action was taken. Thereafter, she moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned seeking direction to get her First Information Report registered. During investigation, statement of victim/prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 1.8.2019 and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 13.08.2019, in which she has reiterated her version as mentioned in the FIR. X-ray of the prosecutrix was done on 8.8.2019 and as per radiological report, age of the prosecutrix was found 20-25 years. Investigating Officer, after investigation submitted charge-sheet dated 11.01.2020 against applicant nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 323, 328, 120B IPC and against applicant no.3 under Sections 323, 328, 376, 120B IPC.

4. On the aforesaid fact, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 is cousin sister-in-law (Jethani), applicant no.2 is husband and applicant no.3 is cousin brother-in-law (Jeith) of the prosecutrix/opposite party no.2. There is a family dispute between the applicant no.2 and opposite party no.2, therefore, applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. There are major contradiction in the version of FIR, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim/prosecutrix. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of victim was recorded on 13.08.2019, in which she has stated that since last four months she is living in her Maika. Givin