Point of Law: It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding

JUDGMENT :

1. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 1/2019 dated 5th January, 2019 and Cognizance taking order dated 19th July, 2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 3374 of 2019 (State Vs. Arvind & Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376, 377 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Surajpur, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No. 940 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 and 377 I.P.C., Police Station-Surajpur, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar. The applicants have further prayed for stay of the aforesaid criminal proceedings during the pendency of the present application.

2. Heard Mr. Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Daya Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

3. On the matter being taken up, on 19th October, 2019, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed following order:

“Heard Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Attreya Dut Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet no. 1 of 2019 dated 05.01.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 19.07.2019 filed in Crl. Case No.3374 of 2019 (State vs. Arvind and others) under sections 323, 504, 506, 376, 377, 420 IPC arising out of Case Crime No.0940 of 2018, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautambudh Nagar and also to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2. She has falsely implicated the other persons also by blackmailing them as it is her habit. She has disclosed her age to be different as one place she has disclosed her age to be 33 years and at another place to be 27 years. She is a fraud lady. She had tried earlier to blackmail the applicants regarding which the applicants had lodged FIR through an application under section 156(3) Cr.PC, copy of which is at pages 44-47 of the paper book. She had also refused herself to be medically examined which is evident from the report of Samudaik/Prarthamik Swasth Kendra, Gautambudh Nagar, copy of which is annexed at page-124 of the paper book. These aspects have not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer of this case and has filed charge-sheet in a routine manner, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. He has relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court rendered in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharasthra and others, MANU/SC/1518/2018, Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashra and others, MANU/SC/0275/2018 and Hem Raj vs. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/0016/2014.

Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that the accused-applicant no. 1 is suffering from kidney ailment and is on dialysis which is being done thrice in a week.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings and has brought to the notice of the Court that in the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.PC. which is annexed at page-128, she has clearly supported the prosecution version by saying that she had met the applicant no.1 about 2 1/2 years ago at Sector 12, Noida for the purposes of getting job and during this period both of them developed nearness to each other and the accused had promised that he would marry her and under that promise, he continued to establish physical relationship with the victim against her wishes. Unnatural sex was also done with her. She used to work and all the money was taken by the applicant no. 1 by deceiving her. Subsequently, she came to know that he was a married man and keeping her