Allahabad High Court
Chadani Pathan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 89 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1389 of 2018 Revisionist :- Chadani Pathan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Jaiswal,Mohammad Yaseen,Pramod Kumar Yadav,Sayed Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Phool Chandra Yadav,Sharad Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard learned counsel revisionist, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Sri Om Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 5.3.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Jaunpur in Final Report No. 6 of 2017 (State Vs. Azeez Siddiquie. By the impugned order the learned court below has rejected the protest petition filed against the final report and simultaneously has taken cognizance for offence under section 182 IPC against the revisionist-complainant and has issued summons to her.
The revisionist lodged an FIR registered as Crime No. 9 of 2017, under section 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act. The I.O. recorded the statement of complainant. Her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. On the basis of statement of complainant recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. the I.O. submitted final report against the accused. The complainant filed a protest petition against it. The learned court below by the impugned order has rejected the protest petition and has also taken cognizance under section 182 IPC against the complainant and has issued process against her.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the FIR was lodged with clear allegations of rape against the accused Azeez Siddiquie. The complainant in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has corroborated the allegations of the FIR. The accused was arrested and he was in jail. Meanwhile he offered to settle the matter and solemnize marriage with the complainant. Her marriage was solemnized in jail premises itself which is evident from the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances the complainant resiled from her previous statement and consequently final report was submitted. The revisionist-complainant has not made any false allegation and has not lodged any false report but due to change circumstances as the matter was settled between the parties the final report was submitted. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that after solemnizing marriage the accused O.P. No. 2 again started to harass her and consequently an FIR has been lodged against O.P. No. 2 and his other family members. Learned court below without appreciating these facts has rejected the protest petition and at the same time has taken cognizance against the complainant under section 182 IPC which unjust and improper. The impugned order is arbitrary and unsustainable.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that FIR was lodged with false and concocted version. The complainant in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that FIR was lodged just to pressurize the accused to solemnize the marriage, hence, final report was submitted which has been accepted by the trial court. The complainant has abused the process of the court, hence, learned trial court has taken cognizance against her for offence under section 182 IPC. So there is no illegality in it.
From the material on record it transpires that FIR was lodged by the revisionist-complainant on 5.9.2017 against O.P. No. 2 registered for offence under section 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act. The I.O. recorded her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has corroborated the allegations of the FIR. It further transpires that statement of 164 Cr.P.C. of the complainant was recorded on 29.9.2017 in which she stated that she has affair with the accused for last one year. On 4.9.2017 a quarrel took place between them and he refused to marry the complainant so she lodged the FIR. The accused has not committed rape with her. It is also mentioned in this statement that 10 days earlier her Nikah has been solemnized with the accused, hence, she wants to withdraw the case. The I.O. on the basis of this statement has submitted final report.
From the evidence and other material available on record it appears that some incident has happened and FIR was lodged but later on matter was settled between the parties and in terms of the settlement the named accused in the FIR Azeez Siddiquie solemnized marriage with the complainant and complainant given statement in his favour under section 164 Cr.P.C. as she wanted to settle the matter. So it can not be said that the FIR was lodged on false and concocted story. Learned court below has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has taken cognizance under section 182 IPC against the complainant which does not appear to be just and proper. Hence, this part of the order is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside.
The revision is partly allowed. The impugned order with regard to taking cognizance under section 182 IPC against the revisionist is hereby set-aside, consequently proceeding under section 182 IPC against the revisionist is quashed.
Order Date :- 24.2.2023 Masarrat