Court No. - 92

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22713 of 2021

Applicant :- Mungaram

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Hare Krishna Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the

entire proceeding originated upon the impugned charge-

sheet dated 08.09.2020 as well as summoning order dated

06.11.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions

Judge, court no. 27/Special Judge (POCSO Act, Exclusive

Court), Agra arising out of Case No. 2369 of 2020 in Case

Crime No. 63 of 2020, under Section 354 IPC & 7/8 POCSO

Act, Police Station Iradat Nagar, District Agra.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there

are contradictions and embellishment in the statement of

the informant-victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164

Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the incident as alleged in

the FIR is of 23.03.2020 whereas the FIR was lodged on

19.05.2020 after delay of more than one month without

explaining the same. It is further submitted that there was

a dispute or altercation between the parties on 26.04.2020

for which the Police has lodged the FIR against both the

parties, so just to falsely implicate the applicant to settle

the score, the FIR has been lodged.

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that from

the FIR and the statement of the victim aged about 12

years recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the offence is

made out against the applicant and if there is any

contradiction, the same would be seen during the trial and

not as a ground available for quashing of the entire

proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further

submitted that this is not a stage where minute and

meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of

evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations

could only be tested in a criminal trial by adducing

evidence and, therefore, the petition is misconceived and

liable to be dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties

and going through the record, it is found that as far as the

submission that the FIR has been lodged with a delay of

more than one month that could not be a ground for

quashing of the criminal proceedings. The embellishment

and the contradiction shown by learned counsel for the

applicant is also to be seen during the trial by

corroborating the evidence adduced. Prima facie, the

statement given under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the

occurrence of the incident is intact and if there is any

contradiction or embellishment in the statement, the

informant had said that she had hit the applicant by lathi

but in another statement, said thing is not there which

would not deny the occurrence of the incident as per the

statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the

contradiction or embellishment is a subject-matter of the

trial, cannot be seen in the proceedings under Section 482

Cr.P.C. The submission that due to enmity, a frivolous FIR

has been lodged against the applicant as some altercation

had occurred between the parties for that, the FIR was not

lodged by the respondent no. 2 or by the applicant against

each other but it was lodged by the Police against both the

parties and both the parties i.e. applicant's side and the

respondent's side were accused in the said FIR. All the

submissions made at the bar related to the disputed

question of fact, cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court

in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

As per the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in

the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R.

1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992

SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992

SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.

Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)

283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

AIR 201