Point of Law: Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner, but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in first information report or charge-sheet.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr Sundeep Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh and perused the record of the case.

2. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the impugned charge sheet No. 263 of 2015 dated 09.07.2017, under Sections 354, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, cognizance and summoning order dated 17.7.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Meerut, order dated 25.10.2017 whereby the learned Magistrate issued bailable warrant as well as further proceedings of case No. 646 of 2014, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Meerut.

3. Before considering the merits of the case, it would not be out of place to mention it here that in the instant case, the charge sheet was submitted way back on 09.07.2015, cognizance was taken thereon and summoning order was passed on 17.07.2015, which were challenged by the applicant before this Court by filing the instant application on 12.1.2022, i.e. after about six and a half years. When, learned counsel for the applicant was confronted with the aforesaid delay in challenging the charge sheet, cognizance and summoning order, he submitted that the applicant was not aware about the initiation of the proceedings against him.

4. On a query by the Court that learned Magistrate in the order dated 25.10.2017 has specifically mentioned that “on the case being taken up, accused did not turn up, summon has already been served upon him, issue bailable warrant against him”, learned counsel for the applicant has belied the order of the learned Magistrate by saying that aforesaid order has been passed by the learned Magistrate on the basis of conjecture and surmises. Averments to this effect has also been made by the learned counsel for the applicant in paragraphs 40, 41 and 42 to the affidavit filed in support of this application.

5. Such types of averments made by the applicant to explain the delay in filing this application are highly deplorable.

6. Now I proceed to consider the merit of the case.

7. The facts that formed the bedrock of this application in nutshell are that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the victim on 01.09.2014 before the Judicial Magistrate-III, Meerut with the allegations that accused-Pankaj, who is the resident of the same village used to stalk her with bad intention and was in search of making sexual relations with the applicant-victim for the last one year. On 01.7.2014, the accused, with an intention to outrage her modesty, caught hold of her, but the matter was resolved by the police by putting pressure on the family of the victim. On 27.8.2014, when the victim was sleeping in her room, at about 11.00 PM, accused barged into her room, swooped her and tried to commit rape upon her forcibly. On the shrieks of the victim, her mother wake up and apprehended the accused, but by using force, abusing and assaulting her mother, he managed to escape by extending threat that if the victim does not make sexual relation with him, he will attack her with acid. The incident was witnessed in the light of inverter. The application further mentions that she has given information to the police on 28.8.2014 and also sent a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut on 30.8.2014, but since, no action was taken by the police, she has filed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. supported by her affidavit.

8. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Meerut vide order dated 26.9.2014 and SHO concerned was directed to lodge an FIR and investigate the matter.

9. In pursuance of the order of the Magistrate dated 26.9.2014, the FIR was lodged on 28.9.2014 at case crime No. 646 of 2014, unde