1

Reserved on 27.11.2021

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17023 of 2021

Applicant :- Pramod

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Shekhar Gangal

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Srivastava

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

1.

Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri

Shekhar Gangal appearing for the applicant, Shri Munne Lal, learned A.G.A.

for the State and Shri Ganesh Shankar Patel holding brief of Shri Pankaj

Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, and perused the

record.

2.

The present application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet

dated 23.06.2020 and supplementary charge sheet dated 20.11.2020 arising

out of Case Crime No.218 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 354B

I.P.C., Police Station Khair, District Aligarh, along with the entire

proceeding of Case No.377 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Pramod and Others) as

well as order dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khair,

Aligarh.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of

hypothetical facts, the F.I.R. in question was lodged by the prosecutrix with

the allegation that on the date of incident when she was doing work in

agricultural field, applicant came suddenly and with the bad intention caught

her and placed his hand on the private parts of the prosecutrix and skirmish

was also done. At the same time, sons of the applicant namely Dheeraj,

Neeraj and Ravi also reached there and assaulted her. At the same time, her

husband also reached there and he tried to save her, then accused persons

also attacked him. Thereafter, they ran away by giving life threat.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that it is highly

improbable that father tried to molest a lady in front of his sons. He further

submitted that the applicant is the Village Pradhan and the government

drainage was being constructed adjoining to the road, but the husband of the

2

informant of the present case and other associates tried to create hindrance,

then an application was given by the applicant to S.D.M., Khair, Aligarh on

18.05.2020. Thereafter, S.D.M., Khair, Aligarh directed to the S.H.O.

concerned for inspecting the site and taking appropriate action. On the same

date, the informant of the present case, her husband and other associates are

trying to create hindrance in the government work on the construction of

drainage, and when a query was made from them, then a threat was given for

falsely implicating in rape case.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that during the

course of investigation, statement of independent witnesses namely Rajesh

S/o Brijmohan Sharma, Jagdish Sharma S/o Lal S/o Har Prasad Sharma,

Chokhelal S/o Ghamandi Lal, Ganga Sharan S/o Cheda Lal were recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer and they categorically

stated that on 16.05.2020 work of digging of drainage was going on under

MGNREGA Scheme, and the prosecutrix and her husband raised objection

and some altercation was also taken place in between Village Pradhan, his

sons and the husband of the prosecutrix. They also stated that no such

incident in relation to molestation of the victim was happened. He further

submitted that after investigation, charge sheet under Sections 323, 504, 506

I.P.C. was prepared on 23.06.2020 and cognizance was taken by the court

below on 20.08.2020. Thereafter, further investigation was conducted by the

Investigating Officer without taking any permission from the court below

and supplementary charge sheet dated 20.11.2020 was filed under additional

Sections 352, 354B I.P.C. and second cognizance was taken by the court

below on 28.01.2021.

6.

Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the decision of

Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Radheyshyam vs.

State of M.P. and Another reported in 2018 0 Supreme (MP) 584 and also

relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Cour