Priyansh Atray vs State of Uttarakhand - 2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2134

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Siddhartha Sah, J
Priyansh Atray – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No.764 of 2020

Important Points

For summoning under Section 354A IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act, the evidence and statements recorded during the inquiry must specifically satisfy the legal ingredients of sexual harassment and sexual intent; mere allegations in a complaint without corroboration in sworn statements are insufficient.

Subject

Criminal - Quashing of Summoning Order

Act Referred

Code of Criminal Procedure: S.482, S.200, S.202
Indian Penal Code: S.323, S.354A, S.504, S.506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: S.11, S.12

Headnote

The applicants sought quashing of a summoning order passed under Sections 323, 354A, 504, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The facts pertain to an allegation where the complainant was abused and assaulted by the applicants. While the medical report confirmed injuries, the applicants contended that the allegations of sexual harassment were fabricated due to a landlord-tenant dispute. The Court found that while evidence supported charges of simple hurt and criminal intimidation, the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. lacked the essential ingredients of sexual intent or harassment. The primary issue was whether the ingredients of Section 354A IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act were satisfied based on the recorded statements. The Court reasoned that for these sections to be attracted, specific acts of sexual nature or sexual intent must be present. Since the statements of the complainant and witnesses did not support such allegations, the summoning under these specific provisions was deemed a result of a cursory approach by the trial court.

Result: The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed. The summoning order dated 15.01.2020... is quashed to the extent of summoning of the applicants under Section 354A IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pankaj Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Vipul Panuli, Narendra Bali

Table of Content
1. summary of the criminal complaint and the subsequent summoning of the accused based on initial statements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. defense arguments regarding false implication, lack of independent witnesses, and motives rooted in residential disputes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. prosecution's reliance on medical evidence versus the admission of missing specific allegations of sexual harassment in sworn statements. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. analysis of whether the statutory ingredients of sexual harassment (ipc 354a and pocso) were met based on the record. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. partial quashing of the summoning order for specific offenses while maintaining others. (Para 19 , 20)

By means of the present criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have sought quashing of the summoning order dated 15.01.2020, along with the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 88 of 2019, under Sections 323, 354A, 504, and 506 IPC and Sections 11/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter referred as POCSO Act), pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC, Haridwar, District Haridwar.

2. The complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 before the Court of the Special Judge, POCSO/FTC, Haridwar, alleging that on 19.03.2019, while the complainant was about to go to school on her scooty, the applicants came there and started abusing the complainant in filthy language and outraged her modesty. When the complainant protested, the accused persons assaulted her with fists and blows. On hearing the hue and cry of the complainant, her father came to the spot, and the accused also abused him and threatened him with dire consequences.

3. In support of the complaint, statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. On the basis of the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC, Haridwar, summoned the applicants to face trial vide order dated 15.01.2020 in Complaint Case No. 88 of 2019, Kumari Medha Arora Vs. Shivansh and Another.

4. Assailing the aforesaid summoning order and seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case and that a perusal of the complaint shows that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants.

5. It is further submitted that there is no independent witness to the alleged incident and that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint. The complainant is a major girl, but in a very clever manner, the incident has been narrated as having occurred on an earlier date so that colour may be given to the complaint and the ingredients of the POCSO Act may be attracted.

6. It is further submitted that the actual facts of the case are that the family of the applicants is residing as tenants on the first floor of the residential house of the complainant’s father, while the family of the complainant is residing on the ground floor. There was some dispute between the father of the applicants and the father of respondent no. 2, and the complainant has adopted pressure tactics. It has been categorically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that the father of respondent no. 2, Rajesh Arora, with a view to grabbing the money of the applicants, has been torturing and harassing the family of the applicants. In this regard, the mother of the applicants filed a complaint on 10.03.2019 before the S.S.P., Haridwar, and the S.H.O., Kankhal.

7. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicants that the summoning order has been passed by the trial court in a very cursory manner and the same is based on surmises and conjectures. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of cour