Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28904 of 2019
Applicant :- Satya Prakash Ram @ Satya Prakash Raj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G. P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 34 of 2017 (State Vs. Satya Prakash Ram), arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 504 & 376 of I.P.C., and 3/4 P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Zamania, District Ghazipur and Charge Sheet dated 13.04.2017 as well as order dated 04.05.2017 & 28.09.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Court-1st, Ghazipur.
The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is delay in F.I.R. of 15 days which has not been explained by the informant of this case, who is father of the victim. The victim went missing from the place i.e. college, which is evident from the site plan, which has been annexed. The accused-applicant had got himself bailed out. The attention was drawn to the statement of friends of the victim as well as mother, all of whom have stated that she used to meet the accused-applicant. In statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she had gone with the accused-applicant of her own free will from college and has married him and one daughter had also born out of the said wedlock and she wants to stay with her husband i.e. accused-applicant. The age of the victim is found to be 18 years in Ossification Test, which is mentioned at page 52 of the paper book, therefore it is argued that as per the victim's own statement as well as by the Ossification Test, it is evident that the victim was a major girl, who had gone with the accused applicant of her own free will and they are married and staying together. The accused-applicant was arrested on 7.2.2017. The charge sheet has been erroneously submitted in this case without making in-depth investigation, in perfunctory manner, which needs to be quashed as the same is malicious prosecution of the accused-applicant.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of quashing the aforesaid proceedings.
Perusal of the record indicates that the charge was framed in this case on 28.9.2018, to which accused-applicant had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and, thereafter, he has absented himself from facing trial and pursuant to which non bailable warrant has been issued against him on 28.9.2018, which order has been prayed to be quashed along with order dated 4.5.2017 by which cognizance has been taken in this matter.
I have gone through the F.I.R.. The father of the victim who is informant in this case has mentioned in the F.I.R. that his daughter Deeksha Kumari had gone missing from the school and he suspected that the accused applicant would have enticed her away because he was seen talking to her daughter and pursuant to the said F.I.R., the police had submitted charge sheet under the above mentioned sections which includes offence under Section POCSO Act also. The investigation officer has found the age of the victim below 18 years then only charge sheet has been filed under Section POCSO Act and 376 IPC.
Since the trial court is already proceeding with the trial, I do not feel it appropriate to interfere in the trial at this stage as whether age of the victim was above 18 years or below, that can be tested only after trial by following provisions as mentioned under Sections 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, therefore it cannot be ruled out that cognizable offence is made out on the basis of evidence on record.
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, 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.
Accordingly, quashing of the charge sheet is refused.
However, it is directed that, in case, if the accused-applicant appears before the court below within 30 days and seek cancellation of non-bailable warrant, the same would be disposed of in accordance with law. In case, the same is rejected and bail application is moved, the trial court may consider granting bail to him. For 30 days from today no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant, but if he does not appear before the court below within that period, the court shall be at liberty to adopt coercive steps to secure his presence.
With the aforesaid direction, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 VPS