Allahabad High Court
Vijay Dutt vs The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy. ... on 25 July, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5162 of 2013 Applicant :- Vijay Dutt Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Lucknow And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- H.S Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard and perused the record.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet no.25 of 2013 dated 27.05.2013 filed in Crime No.0128 of 2013, under Sections 364, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Karaundi Kala, District Sultanpur, for quashing of the order dated 27.07.2013 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 26, Sultanpur, by means of which he has been summoned to face trial, and for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.363 of 2013 (State Vs. Vijay Dutt).
3. Mother of the prosecutrix, respondent no. 2, hadlodged the FIR against the against the applicant and others under Sections 364, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station Karaundi Kala, District Sultanpur, alleging therein that her minor daughter (prosecutrix) was coming back from market in the month of March, 2013; when she reached near primary school then Vijay Dutt (applicant), Subhash, Rakesh and Vishnudev kidnapped the prosecutrix and abused her, the informant.
4. The prosecutrix was recovered and subjected to medical examination; her medical age was determined to be 19 years; certificate given by the Chief Medical Officer dated 18.05.2013, regarding age of the prosecutrix, has been placed on record as Annexure-4; the prosecutrix was having pregnancy of 22 weeks as per her ultrasound report dated 14.04.2013; the prosecutrix, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, she has not mentioned any offence or any involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence, rather she has said that she was in love with Subhash, performed marriage with him and she was carrying pregnancy from him.
5. The police, after investigating the offence, has filed the impugned charge-sheet against the applicant and others under Sections 363, 366, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
6. Mr. H.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the prosecutrix is spending her married life with Subhash, one of the accused, and they have two children out of their wedlock; name of the applicant was wrongly mentioned in the FIR and the police, without collecting cogent and credible evidence, has filed charge-sheet; considering the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC there appears no chance of applicant's conviction in the present offence for which he is being prosecuted.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Ranvijay Singh, learned AGA, submits that the police has collected sufficient evidence regarding involvement of the applicant for commission of the offence for which charge-sheen has been filed and whether the evidence is sufficient or insufficient would be seen at the time of trial; it is not a stage where the sufficiency of evidence can be questioned.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The prosecutrix, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, has not named the applicant for commission of any offence, rather she has categorically stated that she was in love with Subhash with whom she has married and she was having pregnancy of 22 weeks at the time when she was medically examined. Considering the fact that the prosecutrix has not alleged any offence by the accused-applicant, rather she has said that she performed marriage with Subhash and she was having two children from the wedlock, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the application would be a complete abuse of process of the Court and, therefore, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to allow the application and quash the impugned proceedings.
10. Ordered accordingly.
Order Date :- 25.7.2022 MVS/-