Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46776 of 2019 Applicant :- Nadeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Asthana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Ranjeet Asthana, counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.9.2019 passed by Upper District Judge/F.T.C. court no. 2, Civil Court, Shamli, Case no. 31 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime no. 586 of 2018, u/s 364, 376- D, 465, 414 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Shamli (State vs. Arif @ Bhura and others).
Learned counsel has argued that the impugned order whereby charges have been framed against the applicant u/s 364, 376-D, 465, 414 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act is against the record and prima facie, no offence is made out against him. He has argued that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., however, the prosecutrix in her statements recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has named the applicant that he had also involved in her kidnapping on pistol point and after her abduction she was kept in illegal confinement where only allegation of commission of rape is against co-accused Arif. He has further argued that there is no evidence on record for making out offence u/s 414, 465 IPC and therefore, the impugned order may be quashed.
Per contra learned AGA submitted that at the stage of framing of charge even if there is grave suspicion against the accused charge can be framed, however, in the present case factum of prosecutrix, who is according to F.I.R., is less than 16 years of age, was kidnapped on pistol point by the accused and then rape was committed on her. At this stage merely the prosecutrix has stated that her rape was committed by co-accused Arif, however, participation of the applicant and co-accused Sachin cannot be ruled out considering the transaction under which the poor girl was kidnapped and rape was committed upon her.
I am of the opinion that at this stage more than prima facie case against the applicant is made out. The learned Judge has not committed any illegality in framing of charge against the applicant, however, if during trial it appears that certain offences of which applicant has been charged is not made out, it is always open for the court to alter the charges; the allegations against the applicant and co-accused are very serious as rape was committed on minor girl less than 16 years of age; she has also given detailed version in the statement recorded earliest when she was medically examined by the doctor as to how she was kidnapped by three accused and then rape was committed upon her in a hotel room and sexually assaulted.
The present application has no force and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Considering the fact that it is a case of rape and there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence by the accused, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Dhirendra/