Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 419 (ALL)

ANAND PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF Uttar Pradesh

2018-02-16

RAHUL CHATURVEDI

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist at great length and learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case. 2. By means of the instant revision the revisionist Dr. Anand Pratap Singh, Head of Department, Department of Psychology and Mental Health, Gautam Budh Nagar University, Gautam Budh Nagar assailing the summoning order dated 26.9.2017 passed by learned IIIrd A.C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar in case No. 3938 of 2016 in-re (State v. Anand Pratap Singh) arising out of case crime No. 15 of 2016 under Sections 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 406, 506 and 504 IPC, P.S.-Ecotech-I, District Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. Perused the impugned summoning orders.It transpires from the record that on earlier occasion, the applicant approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 434 of 2017, which was allowed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 22.8.2017, remanding the matter back for fresh consideration by the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate by speaking order within a month. Accordingly, IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar after going through the entire materials on record and case diary, has passed the summoning order dated 26.9.2017. The revisionist again filed instant Revision assailing the above summoning order dated 26.9.2017. 4. The genesis of the case, that opposite party No. 2 Ms. Nisha Rajput on 7.2.2016 has lodged an FIR for the incident said to have been taken place during 15-10-2015 to 15.2.2016 against sole accused Dr. Anand Pratap Singh, who happens to be the Head of Department of Psychology. 5. The skeletal facts, as culled out from the FIR are, that the opposite party No. 2 is a regular student pursuing her Master Degree in Clinical Psychology from Gautam Budh Nagar University, Greater NOIDA. She was assigned to do work under the revisionist to complete her assignment/dissertation for the degree of master of Philosophy in Clinical Psychology. From the very inception, relationship of her’s qua her guide Dr. Anand Pratap Singh was very strange, abnormal and unbecoming like a Guide. He often use to make comments and remarks about her looks, cloths and etc and when she has protested then the revisionist has extended threat that he would not give required completion certificate and create impediment and hurdle in completing her degree. Anand Pratap Singh was very strange, abnormal and unbecoming like a Guide. He often use to make comments and remarks about her looks, cloths and etc and when she has protested then the revisionist has extended threat that he would not give required completion certificate and create impediment and hurdle in completing her degree. A detailed allegations was made in the FIR which amply throws light on the character of her guide which need not be elaborated as they are castic to taste and unexpected from a Professor. It is not expected to a teacher to call her taught in her chamber upon his computer showing obscene and nude photographs of actresses. All these allegations are not only mischievous but also horrible for a young girl. An act of debasement of his own taught. The FIR was registered under Sections 354A, 354B, 354C,354D, 406, 506 and 504 IPC against sole revisionist Dr. Anand Pratap Singh. After registering the case, the police started conducting the investigation and during which her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 22.3.2016 and 21.6.2016 respectively. On going through her statement except a minor discrepancy broadly she started the prosecution case and unexpected of a teacher/professor. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the revisionist has tried to buttress his arguments attracting the attention of the Court to issue institutional inquiry report dated 9.12.2016, 9.8.2016 and 20.9.2016. Besides this it was also canvassed that she is a lady of extreme bitter temperament and in the month of April 2015. She has tried to commit suicide by consuming phenyle and she has attached to the revisionist in the July 2015 and therefore casting expulsion of her mental condition. Learned counsel for the revisionist has tried to negate and nullify the impact of the allegations made by her in the FIR in number of departmental inquiry would not going to mitigate the allegations of the FIR. The standard of proof of both the proceedings are quite different and distinct. The allegations in the FIR supported by her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. alongwith the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the independent witnesses, namely, Shabana Uroos, who happens to be the Warden of the Girl Hostel has also given the vivid description about the nature and character of the revisionist. The allegations in the FIR supported by her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. alongwith the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the independent witnesses, namely, Shabana Uroos, who happens to be the Warden of the Girl Hostel has also given the vivid description about the nature and character of the revisionist. The purpose of summoning only prima faice has to be seen and after going through the entire record, I am of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material on record to take cognizance of the offence against the revisionist under the aforesaid sections of IPC. The revision is devoid of merit and consequently hereby dismissed. However, if the revisionist has not been bailed out as yet, the revisionist is directed to surrender and apply for bail. Learned Court below without being affected by the observations made in the instant order decide the bail application of the revisionist without any undue delay. There shall however, be no order as to costs.