Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5816 of 2018 Applicant :- Upendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Takeshwar Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 1.11.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 181 of 2017, under Sections 509 IPC read with Section 67 of Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008, P.S. Magorra, District Mathura.
As per FIR, the prosecution's case is that the applicant-accused posted sleazy video clipping through mobile on whatsapp group containing that the victim was raped in the night of 18.4.2017 by co-accused Sonu and that they had illicit relation prior to that and for compromise in the matter, the informant asked for an amount of Rs. 45,000/- from the accused so as not to make that public.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the accused-applicant had no role in uploading such kind of video nor had he any role in this occurrence. He has been falsely implicated. Investigating officer after having investigated the case had found the involvement of the present accused in this matter. From the contents of the FIR and other evidence on record, it is prima facie, proved that a cognizable offence is made out against the present accused.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet by filing a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that after investigation, the mobile number of the present accused has come into light, which was used in uploading the said video on whatsapp group.
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. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the purpose. He is free to make all submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, rejected.
The applicant may move discharge application before the court, if so advised.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 A.P. Pandey