Chaudhary Pratap Singh vs State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2813

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJEEV MISRA, J.
Chaudhary Pratap Singh And Another - Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
APPLICATION U/S 482 NO.1541 OF 2022.
Decided On : 04-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Applicants : Amit Daga
For the Opposite Parties : G.A., Mehul Khare

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Challenge to charge sheet - Application filed challenging Charge Sheet No. 13 of 2020 for offenses under Sections 354B, 323, 504, and 506 IPC - Delay in lodging FIR of 41 days without explanation - Massive questions raised regarding the credibility of the prosecution case. (Paras 3, 9, 27)

(B) False Prosecution - The court held that the delay in lodging FIR was not satisfactorily explained, and this raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of the prosecution's case. The explanation given by the complainant was deemed unreliable. (Paras 8, 27)

(C) Abuse of Process - The court found that the criminal proceedings were malicious and an abuse of process, leading to the quashing of charges against the applicants. (Paras 27, 30)

Facts of the case:
The applicants were charged based on an FIR lodged 41 days after the alleged incident, which alleged assault and disrobing of the informant. The informant later claimed the applicants had enmity due to family issues.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the prosecution's case is false and no credible evidence supported the charges. Criminal proceedings quashed.

Issues: Whether the delay in FIR registration affects the prosecution’s case credibility? Was the prosecution initiated maliciously?

Ratio Decidendi: The court's analysis established that inordinate delays in FIR registration, particularly without explanation, can undermine the prosecution's case.

Result: The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10426 of 2020 are hereby quashed.

Table of Content
1. charge sheet and allegations outlined. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding delay in fir lodging. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. opposition counters claims with investigation results. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
4. confusion about the prior court order and its impact. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. ruling that prosecution is false and quashed. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Misra, J.

Heard Mr. Amit Daga, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned AGA for State and Mr. Vinay Saran the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Mehul Khare, the learned counsel for first informant/opposite party-2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging Charge Sheet No. 13 of 2020 dated 27.05.2020 submitted in Case Crime No.26 of 2020 under Sections 354B, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Mahila Thana, District Moradabad, Cognizance Taking Order /Summoning Order dated 24.07.2020 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. (CAW), Moradabad in consequential Criminal Case No. 10426 of 2020 ( State of U.P. v. Chaudhary Pratap Singh and others), under Sections 354B, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Mahila Thana, District Moradabad as well as the entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case, now pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. (CAW), Moradabad.

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 14.01.2020, Smt. Priyanka Chaudhary, first informant/opposite party-2 lodged a delayed F.I.R. dated 08.03.2020, which was registered as Case Crime No.26 of 2020 under Sections 354B, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Mahila Thana, District Moradabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely Pratap Singh, Yash Chaudhary, Sapna Chaudhary and Sushil Chaudhary have been nominated as named accused.

5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R is to the effect that on 14.01.2020 when first informant/opposite party-2 alongwith her Nanad Babita Chaudhary were going to Buddhi Bihar for urgent work then named accused are alleged to have intercepted and thereafter, assaulted the first informant and her nanad. Named accused are also said to have dislodged the modesty of first informant/opposite party-2.

6. After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of afore-mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C.. Investigating Officer first examined first informant/opposite party 2, Priyanka Chaudhary under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who has supported the FIR. Thereafter, Investigating Officer examined Lalit Kumar, Raj Bala and Babita Chaudhary under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Aforesaid witnesses have also supported the FIR. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, Investigating Officer opined to submit a charge sheet. Accordingly, he submitted the charge sheet dated 27.05.2020, whereby named accused have been charge sheeted under Sections 354B, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Thereafter Court below has taken cognizance upon the aforesaid charge sheet and simultaneously summoned the charge-sheeted accused vide summoning order dated 24.07.2020, passed in aforementioned State-case.

7. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid, applicants who are named/charge sheeted accused have now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C..

8. It is apposite to mention here that in the interregnum, applicants for protection of their life and liberty earlier approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail but the same was refused by this Court. However, inspite of above, applicants have not yet appeared before court below.

9. Mr. Amit Daga, the learned counsel for applicants in support of present application submits that the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceeding is said to have occurred on 14.01.2020 but the FIR was lodged on 08.03.2020. Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel for applican