Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24998 of 2019 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Yadav @ Mulayam Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh,Bal Krishna Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri G.P. Singh 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 14.4.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 27.5.2019 in Case No.2780 of 2019 (State vs. Raj Kumar Yadav @ Mulayam Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2019 under sections 376, 313, 315 IPC, P.S. Mugal Sarai, District Chandauli pending the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli 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 opposite party no.2/victim has falsely implicated the accused-applicant who is nephew of her real bhabhi. It is further argued that the opposite party no. 2 had taken divorce from her husband Vinod Yadav which annexed at page-57 of the paper book. It is further argued that after her divorce, she had pressurized the accused-applicant to marry her and when he refused, this false case has been imposed against him. Attention is also drawn to one affidavit of Vimla Devi which is annexed at page-67 of the paper book in which it is also stated that opposite party no.2 was pressurizing her to marry her disabled daughter Geeta Devi with his nephew Raj Kumar despite the fact that Geeta Devi was already married. It is further argued that the accused- applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2. If proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to an abuse of process of court.He has relied upon the judgment of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir rendered in Tanveer Iqbal vs. State & Ord. 2018 LawSuit (J&k) 77.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet and have stated that number of WhatsApp messages were exchanged between the victim and the accused and keeping the opposite party no.2 under false impression that he would marry her, physical relationship has established by the accused-applicant by which the opposite party no.2 had become pregnant also and thereafter the pregnancy was got terminated by the applicant.
I have gone through the FIR. It is written in it by the opposite party no.2 that the applicant is the real nephew of her Bhabhi Vimla Devi who used to come her house and gradually he developed closeness with her so much and that they started loving each other. The accused applicant gave false assurance that he would marry her and with that assurance, he established physical relationship with her. He also sent various WhatsApp messages and during this relationship, she became pregnant and on 9.6.2018 her pregnancy was got terminated in Subhkamna Maternity and Nursing Home. He continued to avoid to marry her. The Investigating Officer after having recorded the statement of victim, has submitted charge-sheet. It cannot be denied at this stage that cognizance offence is made out against the accused applicant.
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 Haryana and 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.
However, the applicant may approach the trial court to seek discharge, if so advised, and before the said forum, he may raise all the pleas which have been taken by him here. If such application is made, the same shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with law. The committal court shall commit the case within 30 days subject to compliance of provision of section 209 Cr.PC. to facilitate the trial court to hear and dispose of discharge application.
The applicant may appear before committal court within 30 days to get his case committed to the Court of Sessions so that the accused may move discharge application before it. For a period of 30 days from the date of order, no coercive action shall be taken. But if the accused does not appear before the Committal court, the said court shall take coercive steps to procure his attendance.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 AU