Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1637

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
Rajkumar @ Raju and Others - Revisionists
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 2419 of 2023
Decided On : 22-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Thakur Prasad Dubey, Yogesh Mishra

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused and the presence of grave suspicion against the accused in determining the framing of charges and the discharge of the accused.

Headnote:
POCSO Act - Discharge Application - Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354-Ka IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act - [11, 15, 27, 32, 45, 54, 89, 92, 98, 102, 105, 108, 112, 115, 119, 121, 125, 128, 132, 135, 139, 142, 145, 147, 148, 156, 161, 164, 227, 239, 245, 270, 482] - The court discussed the legal provisions under the POCSO Act and IPC related to the charges against the accused, the power of the court to discharge the accused, and the principles for framing charges. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the statements of the victim and informant, the presence of grave suspicion against the accused, and the need for a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the accused persons were alleged to have assaulted and molested the minor daughter of the informant. The police investigation resulted in summoning the accused persons for the charges, which led to the filing of a discharge application by the accused. The trial court rejected the discharge application, leading to the accused persons filing a criminal revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a clear contradiction in the statements of the victim and the informant regarding the involvement of the accused persons in the incident. The court also emphasized the need for a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused and the presence of grave suspicion against the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the contradiction in the statements of the victim and the informant, the complicity of the accused persons in the alleged incident, and the rejection of the discharge application by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statements of the victim and informant, the presence of grave suspicion against the accused, and the need for a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was allowed, and the impugned order dismissing the discharge application was set aside. The matter was remitted to the trial court for a fresh decision on the discharge application based on the observations made in the present order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 17.5.20223 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, in Case Crime No.368 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354-Ka IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly, wheeby the discharge application moved by the accused-revisionists in said case under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed and case was fixed for framing of charge.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Factual matrix of the case in brief are that the FIR was lodged at the instance of respondent No.2 at police station concerned on 27.7.2019, at 16:16 hours on the basis of order passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bareilly on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the informant on 16.7.2019, with averment that on 4.9.2019, at around 6:20 AM, accused persons namely Raju, Pappi, Guddu, Darpan and Veer Singh, who are resident of her mohalla had mercilessly beaten and threatened him with life. The son and husband of the informant went somewhere else due to fear of accused persons. As informant had made a complaint at police station concerned regarding that incident, the accused-persons were bearing grudge against her. The accused persons appeared at the door of the house of informant at 2.6.2019, at about 11:30 PM due to previous enmity and knocked at her door. The informant opened door in impression that her son and husband would have come to home. The accused persons barged into her house and accused Veer Singh and Pappi grabbed and molested her minor daughter with bad intention. When the informant objected to this, they engaged in maar-peet with her and threatened her that they would compel her to leave the place like her husband and son and will grab her house and take her daughter with them. When the informant and her children shouted for help, the accused persons left the place after hurling threats of life to them. The informant tried to lodge her report at police station concerned but due to influence of accused persons, her report had not been lodged and ultimately she had to take recourse of the court for lodging her FIR, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

4. The police investigated the case, recorded statements of victim, informant and witnesses, inspected the place of incident and Investigating Officer prepared site plan of the place of occurrence and after investigation submitted a final report in favour of the accused persons with conclusion that matter enquired into by approaching respectable people of locality and daughter-in-law of the informant, who was present on the spot but no such type of incident was found to have occurred. This fact emerged that the informant and her husband had borrowed money from accused persons for marriage of their son but they did not intent to pay back the money and a false case was lodged against accused persons with malafide. The informant appeared before the trial court and filed her protest petition against final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. Learned trial court heard the informant on final report and protest petition and placing reliance on statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate as well as the statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as FIR version rejected the final report and allowed the protest petition vide order dated 6.12.2021 and summon the accused Veer Singh and Pappi for said charges and accused Raju, Guddu and Darpan were also summoned for said charges except charge under Section 8 of POCSO Act.

5. The accused persons assailed the summoning order before this Court by moving an Application U/S 482 No.2702 of 2022, wherein they submitted that in fact, no such incident took place as mentioned in the F.I.R. and due to the personal grudges, entire family of the applicants has been roped in the present m