Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15805 of 2019 Applicant :- Rajesh Kamalia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mehul Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The amendment application filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to incorporate the necessary amendments in the prayer clause of the application during course of the day.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 31.10.2018 passed by Special Judge/POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Maharajganj, in complaint case no. 103 of 2016 (Banke Lal Vs. Abdurahman and others), under sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and sections 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012 as well as to quash the entire proceedings of the complaint case no. 103 of 2016 (Banke Lal Vs. Abdurrahaman and others), under sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and sections 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, pending in the court of learned Special Judge/POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Maharajganj.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is false and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also appended the statement of the Doctor, who has conducted the examination of the victim, as Annexure-25 to the affidavit. He further submitted that merely on perusal of the statement of the Doctor recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. does not corroborate the allegations of the complaint. The Doctor in his report stated that no fusion was found. Further the Doctor has not given any definite opinion whether actually rape has been committed with the victim or not. He further submitted that other witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the instant case is nothing but malicious prosecution, which is gross misuse of process of law and court both.
Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant and submitted that the age of the victim has been opined to be 14 years. He has been enticed away from her house, repeatedly raped by the applicant, these facts find supports from the statement of the victim annexed at page 166 of the paper book and her statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. is at page 156, therefore, the present application deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of parties and perused the paper book.
From the perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, annexed at page 166 and further statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. annexed at page 156 of the paper book, it is evidently clear that the applicant has committed rape with the victim and therefore, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court.
In view of above, the application being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Prajapati [Chandra Dhari Singh, J.]