Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sant Lal And Another vs State Of Up And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|22 January, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 24
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2620 of 2019 Applicant :- Sant Lal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Grijesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Shri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the Charge sheet No. 01 of 2018 dated 6.10.2017 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 143 of 2017 (State vs. Santlal and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 0408 of 2017, under Sections 363, 364-A, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Meja, district Allahabad.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that according to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she went with applicant No. 2, Amit Kumar @ Saajan on her own will and applicant No. 2 has not made any pressure or did not compell her to go with him. She further stated in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she is 18 years of age and she was staying with applicant No. 2 on the railway platform as they could not take a room as they did not have any money for that. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants further submitted that as per the radiological examination report, the age of the victim is also above 18 years and she is major. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that as per medical report, there is no injury on the body of the victim.
Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 also submitted that the report was lodged due to some dispute between the parties and opposite party No. 2 does not want to pursue the matter further.
Learned AGA appearing for the State submitted that after pursuing the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the Court may pass an appropriate order.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is annexed as annexure-4 of the application, reads as under:-
“Ck;ku 164 lh-vkj-ih-lh-& U;k;ky; flfoy tt lh0Mh0 ,Q-Vh-lh- dksVZ byk0 eq0v0la0 408@17 /kkjk 363] 366 vkbZ-ih-lh- Fkkuk estk byk0 vkt fnukad 31- 07-2017 dks ihfM+rk liuk dq'kokgk mez 18 o"kZ iq+=h jkelthou dq'kokgk fuoklh xzke pijryk Fkkuk estk dks foospd vjfoUn dqekj flag o efgyk dk0 T;ksfr nsoh Qksu ua- 162733033 }kjk is'k fd;k x;k ihfM+rk dks igpku foospd }kjk izekf.kr fd;k x;k ihfM+rk dk c;ku /kkjk 161 lh-vkj-ih-lh- fy[kk pqdk gw¡A ihfM+rk LorU= lgefr ls c;ku ns jgh gSA ihfM+rk us 'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd lktu Hkkjrh; vkSj eSa ,d gh xkao ds gSa eSa vkSj lktu ,d nwljs ls I;kj djrs gSaA eSa 03-07-2017 dks viuh ethZ ls lktu ds lkFk bykgkckn vk x;h ;gka ls fQj eS vkSj lktu dkuiqj pys x;sA ;gk¡ yxHkx 18 ls 19 fnu jgs ogka ij ge nksuksa LVs'ku ij :ds Fks ikl esa iSlk ugha Fkk blfy, gksVy esa ugha :d ik;s eq>s fdlh us dksbZ /kedh ugha nh u gh cgyk;k Qqlyk;k tks Hkh gqvk nksuks dh ethZ ls gqvk eSa vius ek¡ cki ds lkFk jguk pkgrh g¡w lktu o mlds firk funksZ'k gSa mijksDr c;ku ihfM+rk ds dFkukuqlkj fy[kk x;kA c;ku i<+dj ihfM+rk dks lquk;k o le>k;k x;kA ,l-Mh- lqudj rQ~rh'k fd;k liuk dq'kokgkA fnuk¡d 31-07-2017 As per the medical examination report, the age of the victim is more than 18 years. After perusing the entire materials, I reached to the conclusion that the criminal case was initiated due to some enmity.
In the case of State of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy and others, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the section 482 Cr.P.C. Envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, “to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C., to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and to secure the ends of justice”.
In view of the above, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 143 of 2017 (State vs. Santlal and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 0408 of 2017, under Sections 363, 364-A, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Meja, district Allahabad is quashed.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Sumaira
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sant Lal And Another vs State Of Up And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
22 January, 2019
Judges
  • Chandra Dhari Singh
Advocates
  • Grijesh Kumar