Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(All) 96149
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Pooran And Another – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondent
APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 1424 of 2025 at Allahabad
Petitioner: Sangeeta Shukla and Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi
Respondent: G.A. and Ram Kumar
Judicial intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited; courts should not interfere with investigations unless no cognizable offence is disclosed.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3 and 4 - Judicial intervention in criminal proceedings - The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed. The court noted that the allegations made by the victim were specific and consistent, warranting further investigation. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Summoning of accused - The court held that the Magistrate's opinion on summoning should not be interfered with unless there is a major inconsistency in the statements. The court reiterated that the merits of the allegations should not be examined at the initial stage. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicants faced allegations of molestation and physical assault against a minor victim, with claims of video evidence. The applicants argued that the complaint was a counterblast to a prior FIR lodged against the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial grounds to interfere with the summoning order, emphasizing the need for the investigation to proceed.
Issues: The main issues included the consistency of the victim's statements and the appropriateness of the summoning order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations were sufficiently serious to warrant investigation, and the power to quash should be exercised with caution.
Result: Application dismissed.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri Ram Kumar for the opposite party no. 2.
2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavits and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
3. The case of the applicants is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 30.11.2022 who happens to be the father of the victim who is aged about 17 years with an allegation that on 23.11.2022 when the victim who happens to be a daughter had gone to answer the natures call in the agricultural field in the evening then the applicants herein who were already present over there with illegal intentions overpowered the victim and thereafter with the help of a stole, they tried to put it in the mouth of the victim and administered beating and also committed offence of pressing the chest (breast) and also prepared the video of the same. As per the complaint on 25.11.2021, the complaint was made before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura and on their own, got the medical examination done. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire allegations so contained in the complaint, if taken into face value would not result in any infliction of criminality particularly in view of the fact that the entire motive behind inflicting of criminal proceedings is an outcome as a counter blast as earlier on 12.11.2022, a first information report stood lodged by the applicant no. 2 against the opposite party no. 2 under Sections 452, 307, 504, 506 & 34 IPC being FIR No. 0483 of 2022 relatable to the commission of offencess on 19.07.2022. He submits that just in order to put the applicants in a negotiating table to arrive at a settlement, force is being sought to be exerted and, thus, he submits that no offences have been committed. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, there is a major inconsistency and the variance in the statement of the victim under Section 202 and of the complainant under Section 200 as though the victim has come up with a stand and she has deposed that the incident was recorded in the mobile in the form of a video recording but the first informant has denied the same as according to him, no video was prepared. Learned counsel for the applicant, thus, submits that the court below has proceeded to summon the applicants merely on asking in a mechanical manner without adverting to the core and fundamental issues which were required before summoning.
4. Sri Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has countered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants while contending that there is very limited scope of interference in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as this Court may not come to the rescue particularly when there happens to be a pin- pointed allegation against the applicants by the victim in the statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the same is in conformity and in consonance with the complaint. He further submits that the issue as to whether it is a matter of counter blast is a fact which is to be thrashed out in the trial.
5. Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer has adopted the argument of the counsel for the opposite party no. 2, he submits that there happens to be consistency in the statement of the victim under Section 202 and 200 as well as the complaint and this much is required at the stage of summoning the accused.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. The pivotal question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings at this stage is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, before delving into the matter further there are certain factors which have to be kept in
