Allahabad High Court
Mitrasen Yadav Alias Mitrasen vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 14 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39961 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 711 of 2025 Applicant :- Mitrasen Yadav Alias Mitrasen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant, as well as Sri Hansraj Verma, the learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.
2. By means of the instant application under Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has sought quashing of the summoning order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 16, Barabanki as well as entire proceeding of Case No.187/2025, arising out of Crime No.0361 of 2024,lodged at Police Station Satrikh, District Barabanki, and the charge sheet no.368/2024 filed on 03.10.2024 under Sections 126(2), 351(3) and 64 BNS.
3. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 31.08.2024 stating that while the informant's daughter aged 21 years was returning from the school at about 3 p.m., the applicant forcibly dragged her to a millet field and started disrobing her. When his daughter raised a hue and cry, the applicant left her apprehending that some persons may come there.
4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS, she stated that the applicant had taken out her panty and underwear and tried to commit the misdeed against her.
5. The medico legal report of the victim revealed no mark of injury or sign of use of force.
6. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she alleged the commission of rape by the applicant.
7. After investigation, a charge-sheet for commission of offences underunder Sections 126(2), 351(3) and 64 BNS was submitted against the applicant on 03.10.2024and the trial Court took cognizance of the offences by means of an order dated 27.02.2025.
8. Assailing validity of the charge sheet, summoning order and the entire proceeding, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR and the statement of the victim under Section 180 BNSS do not contain any allegation of commission of rape and although this allegation has been levelled subsequently in the statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the same is not supported by the findings of the medico legal examination report. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s JM Laboratories and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5067 of 2024, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. The order of the Magistrate summoning an accused person must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused. The Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused.
9. The aforesaid observations were made in a case arising out of a complaint filed under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and not from any FIR. In the present case, the material collected during investigation i.e. statements of the informant and the victim, make out a case of molestation and disrobing, both are cognizable offences. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she has alleged commission of rape by the applicant. The investigating officer has submitted a charge sheet after the aforesaid material came to light during investigation. The trial Court has perused the charge sheet and the documents submitted therewith and has come to a conclusion that there was sufficient ground for taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the applicant to face trial. This indicates application of mind by the trial Court to the material collected during investigation and the outcome of the investigation recorded in the charge sheet and it cannot be said that the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence and has summoned the applicant to face trial in a mechanical manner.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant has next summited that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
11.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online SC 379 has held that while deciding an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot hold a mini trial so as to examine the submissions regarding merit of the case and come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are false. Correctness of the allegations has to be examined by the trial Court during the trial after the parties are given an opportunity to lead their evince.
12. In view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the applicant to face the trial. The application lacks merits and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.7.2025 MVS/-