Allahabad High Court
Smt Shahida vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 18 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117292 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18385 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt Shahida Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned order dated 09-04-2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffarnagar in complaint Case No.11/9 of 2024 (Smt. Shahida Vs. Rahul and others) arising out of Case Crime No.636 of 2023, U/s 354, 354C, 376, 363, 506 I.P.C., & 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Muzaffarnagar.
3. The case of the applicant is that she happens to be a complainant/ first informant and the mother of the victim who is a student of class-IX and aged about 15 years when the incident took place and has alleged that a first information report was lodged bearing No. 0636 of 2023 before the police station Kotwali Nagar, Muzaffarnagar, under Sections 354, 354C, 376, 363, 506 I.P.C., & 3/4 POCSO Act against the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 with an allegation that the opposite party No. 2 is the resident of District Muzaffarnagar and by profession, she is a labour, her daughter- victim was studying in class-IX who used to be in the house on alone and the accused- opposite party no. 2 along with his mother- accused opposite party No.3 had ill intentions towards the victim as while exerting pressure, the accused-opposite party No. 2 outraged the modesty of the victim for several times on 20.08.2023, the victim suffered from health problem and when she was taken to the doctor then the victim disclosed that she was put under pressure and she was threatened that she is to have physical relationship with the opposite party no. 2, accused, otherwise her video would be viral. Further allegation in the first information report is that the opposite party No. 2 had approached the police station and even before the politician for lodging of the complaint but nothing was done. However, in turn, they was threatened of dire consequences and when on 28.08.2023, the applicant herein was making request before the authorities then in her absence, the opposite party No.2, complainant threatened the victim that her video would be viral and the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 exerted pressure for physical relationship. Post lodging of the first information report, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim followed by the statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded and the statement independent witness, Smt. Monika wife of Sanju, Smt. Gulveer Kaur wife of Madan Pal was recorded, however, final report came to be submitted on 18.11.2023 by the police against the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, accused followed by a protest petition on 06.02.2024 by the applicant herein and the case transformed into a complaint case and post recording of the statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of applicant and of the victim under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffarnagar in the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 11/9 of 2024 (Smt. Shahida Vs. Rahul and others) proceeded to reject the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Questioning the said order, the applicant has filed the present application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order impugned in the present application rejecting the complaint cannot be sustained for a single moment inasmuch as first of all the same is solely based upon the investigation so conducted post lodging of the FIR by the Investigating Officer followed by the final report wherein the Investigating Officer was of the opinion that there happened to be monetary dispute between the parties. Submission is that what was required to be seen at the stage of summoning in a complaint case would be the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. Argument is that though the Court may after conceding the entire aspect of the matter hold that prima facie no offence is made out as the complaint itself frivolous but for that purpose there has to be a discussion upon the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the complaints. Argument is that the impugned order proceeds upon the fact that since the Investigating Officer post lodging of the first information report was of the opinion that it was a monetary dispute and there was nothing on record to suggest the occurrence of the incident treating it to be a gospel truth rejecting the complaint which is not as per law.
6. Contention is that something more was required as the court below has given much weightage to the fact that the call details were not there and there was nothing on record to show any video or photograph was taken of the victim in compromising of the situation. He submits that the order in question be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.
7. Shri Pawan Kumar Misrha who appears for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 while countering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order which is subject matter of challenge dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. is perfectly valid in accordance with law for the simple reason it takes into account each and every aspect of the matter. According to him, once though investigation was conducted post lodging of the first information report, a final report came to be submitted showing that no such incident occurred with respect to commissioning of the offences and it was nothing but a monetary dispute which was given a criminal colour then the complaint is bound to be rejected and has been rightly rejected as there are no contradictions and there was no call details or any electronic material or input showing video or photograph in a compromising situation of the victim. However, he could not dispute the fact that there has been no consideration to the statements of the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
8. Learned State Law Officer has supported the argument of the counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
10. Apparently, at the instance of a complaint, challenge has been raised to an order whereby the complaint preferred by the complainant has been rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C. As a matter of fact, alleging offences under Sections 354, 354C, 376, 363, 506 I.P.C., & 3/4 POCSO Act upon the victim, the applicant-complainant lodged a first information report and post recording of the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim as well as of the independent witnesses, a final report came to be submitted holding that no offences were committed and it was only a monetary dispute between the parties. A protest petition came to be preferred by the complainant and post recording of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the complaint came to be rejected. Though it is not a matter of rule and practice that whenever complaints are lodged then after recording of statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summons are to be issued. However, the Courts of law are required to record a prime facie satisfaction that on the basis of the statements in the FIR/ complaint and the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the case is triable and not frivolous for summoning the accused. Here in the present case, the Court finds that the order dated 09.04.2025 rejecting the complaint is a three page order, the first page is dedicated towards the allegations levelled in the first information report and in the second page in the paragraphs (recording findings), reliance has been placed upon the fact that post lodging of the proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and recording of the statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the victim and of the independent witnesses, a final report came to be submitted that the dispute was primarily monetary and no such incident was occurred. The court below has also observed that from the perusal of the documents, it is apparent that there happened to be monetary dispute between the mother of the complainant and mother of the accused No. 2. Further a finding has been recorded that the complaint is frivolous and there is no material to show that there are no details are available on record or any electronic input regarding the photographs and the video of the victim in a compromising situation.
11. In the opinion of the Court, the said consideration which weighed the court below while rejecting the complaint are not sufficient as there ought to be a discussion that too on prime facie basis of the import and the impact of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis, the allegations contained in the first information report. Apparently, the said exercise is lacking.
12. Notably, the Court are not required to record a conclusive findings at the stage of summoning whether offence has been committed or not but what would be required, would be a prima facie findings that the case is triable on the basis of the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the allegations in the complaint/ first information report. If there are material contradictions in the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis which the allegations in the FIR of the complaint which leads to the only conclusion that no such offences have been committed then obviously, the complaint in the given facts and circumstances as it may be rejected.
13. Since the aforesaid exercise is lacking in the order under challenge rejecting the complaint of the opposite party No. 2, thus, the order cannot be sustained. Importantly, on a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra and learned State Law Officer whether there is any discussion on the aspect of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses vis-a-vis the allegations in the complaint/ FIR with respect to the fact whether there is any material contradiction or variation which goes to the root of the matter in order to determine that the complaint is frivolous, they submit that the said exercise is lacking and the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass fresh orders. Accordingly, the application is decided in the following terms:
(a) The order dated 09-04-2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffarnagar in complaint Case No.11/9 of 2024 (Smt. Shahida Vs. Rahul and others) is set aside.
(b) The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
14. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 31.07.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.
15. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case.
16. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.7.2025 A. Prajapati