Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29337 of 2019 Applicant :- Deepak Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Ajay Vikram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 04.05.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 08.07.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Firozabad in S.S.T. No. 1681 of 2019 (State vs. Deepak Jain) arising out of Case Crime NO. 119 of 2019 under section 376, 323, 506 IPC and 3 (2) V SC/ST Act, Police Station Toondla, District Firozabad and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused- applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no. 2 as he has drawn the attention to the FIR in which it is mentioned that the accused-applicant was continuously physically exploiting her for last five years and she had to undergo abortion also four times. He was indulging in sexual activity with her giving her impression that he would marry her but ultimately she was thrown out and the accused-applicant had married some other lady. It is argued that an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- was taken by the father of opposite party no. 2 from the accused-applicant, the deposit slip of bank account of opposite party no. 2 is annexed as page-69 of the paper book and it is argued that when the said amount was demanded back, the accused-applicant has falsely implicated the accused- applicant. The police has not made investigation in proper manner and has submitted charge-sheet in a routine manner, which needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet and has argued that the applicant was continuously sexually exploiting the opposite party no. 2 keeping her under impression that he would marry her but ultimately he married some other lady, hence offence under section 376 IPC is made out.
I have gone through the FIR in which it is mentioned that on 1.1.2014 accused-applicant had enticed her away, by giving her promise that he would marry her and kept her in his house for continuously five years and she was being physically exploited and got abortion done four times and when the opposite party no. 2 insisted upon the applicant for marrying her, she was thrown out from the house, in which his brother was also cooperating.
After investigation in the matter, charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused-applicant finding supporting evidence against him. The evidence which has been gather by the Investigating Officer cannot be looked into at this stage in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as the same would require trial and it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out in the present case.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R.
P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryanaand others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
In view of the aforesaid, the application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 AU