Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 900 of 2020 Revisionist :- Mohd. Haider Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Girish Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Girish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 17.07.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.9, District- Varanasi in Session Trial No.91 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.72 of 2017 under Sections 354 I.P.C. and 7/8 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, P.S.- Adampur, District- Varanasi. By the impugned order, the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that accused/revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated on account of facts that previously he has lodged a report under Section 406, 506 I.P.C. against the husband of the complainant. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that F.I.R. has been lodged with utmost delay of merely 11 months. All the allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and fabricated. The accused/revisionist has never give tuition to the victim – daughter of the informant. False story has been cooked up. Learned counsel also contended that the trial court without appreciating material on record in cursory manner has passed the impugned order and has rejected the discharge application of the accused/revisionist. Impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. It is further contended that there is no evidence in support of the allegations made against the revisionist. There is material contradictions between the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and further statement of other witnesses.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen and there is sufficient material on record to frame charge against the accused. The informant and the victim and other witnesses in their statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. have corroborated the allegations of the F.I.R.. The learned trial court has rightly rejected the discharge application. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
From the material of record, it appears that an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.72 of 2017 was filed under Sections 354 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act against the accused/revisionist alleging that he was giving tuition to the daughter of the informant. With intention to outrage her modesty has committed obscene act, he also lure the victim when she goes to school. After investigation on the basis of evidence collected during investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. It also appears that accused/revisionist challenged the cognizance order and also prayed for quashing for entire proceedings by an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.43143 of 2017. The said application was disposed of finally with a direction that applicant may file discharge application and it shall be decided by the Court concerned in accordance with law. The accused/revisionist moved an application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. which has been rejected by the impugned order.
The learned trial Court has narrated all the facts, material and evidence which is available on record. It has also considered the legal aspect of the matter and proposition of law as laid down by the superior Courts. It has been observed by the learned trial Court that the age of the victim is 11 years and she is minor. There are allegations of obscene act/luring of the victim by the accused which stands corroborated by the statement of victim under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and statement of other witnesses. The learned trial Court on the aforesaid observations has held that there is sufficient material to frame charge against the accused and there is no ground to discharge the accused. So, the impugned order is a reasoned one. It contends all the material facts and after taking into consideration the material available, the learned trial Court has reached to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out, there is sufficient material to frame charge and rejected the discharge application. So, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. This criminal revision lack merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The criminal revision is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 Krishna*