Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6724 of 2019 Applicant :- Shadab And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the further proceeding of complaint case no. 07/2017 Wasik Vs. Shahrukh & others under sections 354, 323, 506 IPC and 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Barhapur, District Binjor pending in the court of Additional District & Session Judge, Court no. 5 (POCSO Act) Bijnor and also quash the impugned summoning order dated 30.5.20.18 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, court no. 5 (POCSO Act) Bijnor.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on 28.4.2017 the opposite party no. 2, his son and two others have committed marpeet with the applicant no. 1 Shadab. In this regard the father of the applicant no. 1 namely Ansar Ahmad had lodged an N.C.R. on 28.4.2017 against the opposite party no.2 and three others under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and in that case the charge sheet was submitted against the opposite party no. 2 and three others. In counter blast the opposite party no. 2 has moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C on 12.6.2017 after two months against the applicants. In fact, the applicants have not committed the alleged offence. It has further been submitted that a simple marpeet has taken place in a marriage and to give a colour the opposite party no. 2 has shown the incident to be taken place with his minor daughter. False story has been concocted by the opposite party no. 2. The impugned summoning order dated 30.5.2018 is not in accordance with law. No case is made out against the applicants. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.
On the other hand learned A.G.A argued that in complaint it has been mentioned that on 27.4.2017 the applicants have caught hold the minor daughter of opposite party no. 2 namely, Shabnoor and tried to take her towards Sugar -cane field and also misbehaved with her and when the son of opposite party no. 2 tried to save his sister the applicants have committed marpeet with the son of opposite party no. 2 namely Zaid. The court below has passed the impugned summoning order after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face the trial under sections 354, 323, 506 IPC and 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned summoning order dated 30.5.2018.
A perusal of the record shows that the opposite party no. 2 in his complaint it has mentioned that on 27.4.2017 the applicants outraged the modesty of daughter of opposite party no. 2 and have committed marpeet with the son of opposite party no. 2 namely Zaid. The applicants have been summoned to face the trial on the basis of statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The court below after considering the allegation made in the statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face the trial under sections 354, 323, 506 IPC and 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the further proceeding as well as impugned summoning order of the aforementioned case. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 A.