Allahabad High Court
Devendra Parasar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 March, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8565 of 2023 Applicant :- Devendra Parasar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Tripathi,Neha Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Som Veer Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Som Veer, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that he has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in the office on 13.3.2021 but the same is not on record.
Office to trace out the said vakalatnama and place the same on record and also make a note in the order sheet regarding the same.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to allow this application and quash the summoning order dated 13.12.2022 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.7 of 2022 (Satya Prakash Vs. Krishna Murari and others) u/s 376, 354, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Refinery, District Mathura pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mathura and to stay the aforesaid summoning order as well as entire proceeding of aforesaid case.
The facts of the present case are that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 5.9.2022 was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant and three other persons and one unknown person for offences under Section 376, 354-B, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act alleging therein that on 2.9.2022 at about 7.30 p.m. his daughter aged about 15 years was returning after easing herself and as soon as she reached Balmiki Temple, accused Suneeta met her and lured her and took her in her house where Krishna Murari, Vinod Pandit, Pitambar, Devendra Parashar and one another person were present who were drinking liquor. As soon as she reached there, Krishna Murari got his daughter seated in his lap and told her that the case which she has registered against his son be settled by her father otherwise it would not be good and all the four persons with an ill-intention, got her seated on their laps and touched and manipulated her private parts. They even inserted their fingers in private part of his daughter. She was then threatened. She then came back and told the said incident to opposite party no.2 after which he went to police station to lodge FIR where the said accused persons were found standing outside and threatened him. He moved an application before the S.S.P. Mathura through post but no action has been taken and as such he has moved application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The court concerned on the said application called for a police report from the concerned police station which was given on 12.9.2022 stating therein that no such report has been lodged. The said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was then directed to be treated as complaint and the trial court proceeded to record the statement of opposite party no.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of his witness being victim/prosecutrix as P.W.1 and Bhed Singh as P.W.2 after which the court concerned summoned the applicant and other accused persons for offences under Sections 376, 354, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act whereas accused Suneeta was summoned under Section 363, 366 IPC and 16/17 POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that no medical examination of the victim/prosecutrix has been got done and as such there is no corroboration of the allegations through medical evidence. It is argued that in the police report as submitted by the police, there is a clear opinion of the police that the present incident is a false incident and there is enmity between the parties, as such the same has been moved. It is argued that prior to the present case, the opposite party no.2 had lodged a FIR against Shivam, S/o Krishna Murari on 19.5.2021 under Section 294 IPC in which the trial is pending before the Juvenile Court. It is argued that the dispute was between Satya Prakash, the opposite party no.2 and Krishna Murari but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that no such incident whatsoever has taken place. While placing para 16 of the affidavit, it is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in five other cases by Harish Sharma, Satish Sharma and Girish Sharma who are real brothers, the disclosure and explanation has been given in the said para of the said cases. The opposite party no.2 is the cousin maternal uncle of the said three persons due to which in collusion with them has filed complaint just in order to falsely implicate and harass the applicant. The present proceedings against the applicant are abuse of process of Court and as such deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for quashing and argued that the applicant is named in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was treated as complaint, in the statement of opposite party no.2 recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of his witnesses being the victim/prosecutrix and other witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C and there are allegations against him. The trial court after going through the record has passed detailed order on merits and summoned the applicant and other accused persons to face trial. There is incomplete disclosure of the criminal history of the applicant as the applicant is involved in fifteen criminal cases in all but there is only disclosure and explanation of five criminal cases. Even the proceedings under the Goonda Act has been initiated against the applicant in the year 2017. The order impugned is after going through the matter in detail and after recording a satisfaction that prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel for the State has also adopted the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. The present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
After having heard learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was treated as complaint, in the statement of opposite party no.2 recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of his witnesses being the victim/prosecutrix and other witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C and there are allegations against him. The victim is stated to be a minor. The applicant has criminal history of fifteen cases. In so far as the argument with regards to police report is concerned, the same cannot be looked into as it has no relevance except for the fact that whether FIR has been lodged at the police station or not and anything beyond it cannot be looked into. The order impugned is a just and proper order which has been passed after considering the matter in detail and by returning a finding that prima-facie offence is made out. There is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 15.3.2023 Gaurav