Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5475 of 2021 Applicant :- Seetu @ Yogesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicants today in Court is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he be permitted to amend prayer clause of present application by seeking a challenge to Cognizance Taking Order/ Summoning Order dated 24.11.2021 as due to inadvertence, challenge to same could not be made.
4. Prayer made for is bonafide. Accordingly same is allowed.
5. Let necessary corrections be made by learned counsel for applicants in prayer clause of present application during course of the day.
6. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging Charge Sheet dated 24.10.2020 submitted in Case Crime No.238 of 2020 under Sections 323. 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2) 5a SC/ST Act, P.S. Bagwala, District Etah, Cognizance Taking Order /Summoning Order dated 24.11.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah in consequential Special Sessions Trial No. 1071 of 2020 (State Vs. Seetu @ Yogesh and others) under Sections 3(2) 5a SC/ST Act, P.S. Bagwala, District Etah as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned Sessions Trial, now pending in the Court of Incharge Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah.
7. Learned counsel for applicant submits that informant/opposite party-2 lodged a delayed F.I.R. dated 26.09.2020 in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 07.07.2020. However, there is no explanation for delay in lodging aforesaid F.I.R. dated 26.09.2020. In support of above, learned counsel for applicants has invited attention of Court to the written report dated 21.09.2020 submitted by opposite party-2 and the statement of opposite party-2 as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is thus urged that as delay in lodging F.I.R. has not been explained, entire proceedings get vitiated and therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court. In support of his above submission, he has placed reliance upon paragraph 8 of the judgement in P. Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866. For ready reference same is reproduced herein-under:-
"8. Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely. [See Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114; Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1].
In the matter on hand, the entire family of PW1 was at the mercy of Accused No. 1, who was very rich and influential. Accused No.1 acted as a benefactor to the family and had helped them financially and otherwise on multiple occasions. Under such circumstances, PW1 might have been reluctant to lodge a complaint immediately after the occurrence of the said incident, especially when Accused No. 1 had employed his henchmen to keep the house and movements of PW1 and her family under surveillance. Moreover, no material has been brought to our notice by the defence to prove that the delay in filing the F.I.R. was with the intention of false implication. Thus, the explanation given by PW1 for the delay remains untainted.
In our considered opinion, looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in condoning the delay and in concluding that the said delay was not vital to the case of the prosecution."
8. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that criminal proceedings initiated by opposite party-2 are not only malicious but also an abuse of process of Court. Consequently, same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
9. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed present application. However he could not dispute the legal submission urged by learned counsel for applicant, at this stage..
10. Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material brought on record, matter requires consideration.
11. Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.
12. Issue notice to opposite party no.2.
13. All the opposite parties shall file their respective counter affidavits on or before the date fixed in the notice.
14. List for admission on the date fixed in the notice before appropriate Bench.
14. Until further orders of this Court, further proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 1071 of 2020 (State Vs. Seetu @ Yogesh and others) under Sections 3(2) 5a SC/ST Act, P.S. Bagwala, District Etah, now pending in the Court of Incharge Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah, shall remain stayed against applicants.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021/YK