IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Shishir Gupta – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 45380 Of 2023
Decided On : 05-01-2024
Rape - Quashing of Proceedings - IPC 376D, POCSO Act 5G/6
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for quashing the proceedings of a complaint case against him under IPC 376D and POCSO Act 5G/6. The complainant alleged that the applicant and another person raped her on multiple occasions, threatened her with an obscene video, and coerced her to accompany them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the medical evidence did not corroborate the allegations, the complainant did not raise alarm or inform authorities about the alleged incidents, and the summoning order did not consider the applicant's residence jurisdiction. The court concluded that the allegations were false and concocted to harass the applicant.
Issues: Validity of summoning order, sufficiency of medical evidence, failure to conduct an enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., and lack of complaint or alarm raised by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for medical evidence to corroborate allegations, the requirement to conduct an enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., and the importance of raising alarm or informing authorities about criminal incidents.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the application and set aside the summoning order against the applicant.
JUDGMENT :
(Mayank Kumar Jain, J.) :
1. Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State.
2. Present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 0009 of 2023, arising out of Criminal Case No. 0164 of 2023 (Smt. Vibha Prajapati vs. Shishir Gupta & Others) under Sections 376D of IPC and Section 5G/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai.
3. Opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint against the applicant and other persons under Sections 328 and 376 of IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun.
4. The allegations in the complaint are summarised thus:
4.1. The applicant, who was working as a Contractor, opened an office in the name and style of S. K. Enterprises in the house of one R.S. Gupta at Tulsi Nagar, Orai, District Jalaun. Opposite party no. 2 came to know that there was a vacancy of a Clerk and a Stenographer in the office of the applicant. She met the applicant in the year 2015 for such job and was asked to approach after one week. She was offered a job of Clerk in the office of the applicant on monthly payment of Rs. 5000/-.
4.2. After 15-20 days, the applicant called the complainant at his office at 9:00 PM. When she reached the office at around 8:30 PM, she found the applicant and one Ajit Singh to be present there. She was offered a cup of coffee by the applicant. After consuming it, she lost her senses. When she regained consciousness, she found that there were no cloths on her body. The applicant and Ajit Singh had committed rape with her.
4.3. When the complainant informed that she will file a complaint against them with the police, they showed her an obscene video and threatened to make this video public in case she filed any complaint or told her family about this incident. The applicant and Ajit Singh raped her on several occasions after this, under the pretext of leaking the obscene video.
4.4. During the nationwide lockdown in 2020, the applicant closed his office at Orai. There was no communication between the applicant and the complainant during 2020 to 2023. In the month of September 2023, the applicant called the complainant and asked her to work with him again, but she refused. The applicant showed some indecent photographs and video to her and threatened to make these photos and video public in Orai and send it to her family members if she does not accompany him.
4.5. She became very frightened. She was taken to an unknown house by the applicant where Sardar Ajit Singh was already present. They raped her without her consent. Thereafter they took her in the car and after some distance removed her and left from there saying that they have opened their office in Noida. She has to come there whenever called otherwise she would have to face serious consequences. Firoz Khan and Ghanshyam were passing from there at that time. Upon enquiring with her, she narrated the entire incident to them.
5. Sri Ajay Sengar, Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that :
5.1. One Ritesh Gupta, resident of Madhya Pradesh is also a Railway Contractor and has business rivalry with the applicant. He felt enemity with the applicant. He planned to implicate the applicant in this heinous crime. The complainant is managed by the gang of false criminal litigations.
5.2. After recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the Court concerned directed the Chief Medical Officer, Jalaun by order dated 04.10.2023, to medically examine her and submit his report. But the complainant refused to undergo internal and external medical examination on 18.10.2023. The Chief Medical Officer, Jalaun submitted his report to the Court concerned about the refusal made by the co
Pepsi Foods Ltc. and Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others
National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and Another
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra and another
Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra
Birla Corporation Limited vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others
Vijay Dhanuka and Others vs. Najima Mamtaj and Others
Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another (2017) 3 SCC 528
The amendment to Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry before issuing summons against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction, to prevent false complaints....
(1) If a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of offence alleged against accused, Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.(2) Cognizance of offence – Magistrate can ignore conclusion ....
A detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of summoning of an accused person.
The inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory when the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction, and summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter requiring the applica....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.