Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 116 (ALL)

Aditya Kumar Singh v. State of U. P

2022-01-28

ANIL KUMAR OJHA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State by means of Video-Conferencing and perused the record. 2. This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 8437 of 2020, State Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh, arising out of Case Crime No. 0236 of 2019 under Section 376 I.P.C., P.S. Shahpur, District Gorakhpur pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Gorakhpur and also to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 11.08.2019 submitted in the aforesaid case as well as the impugned cognizance order dated 07.07.2020 passed by A.C.J.M.-3, Gorakhpur and non-bailable warrants issued against the applicant vide order dated 03.03.2021. 3. Allegation against the applicant, Aditya Kumar Singh is that applicant and O.P. No. 2 were known to each-other since last four years of the alleged incident. On 23.03.2019 at about 5:00 p.m. in the evening, applicant came to the house of O.P. No. 2 along with sweets. Applicant administered some intoxicating substance along with sweets to O.P. No. 2, thereafter O.P. No. 2 became unconscious. Applicant forcibly committed rape upon O.P. No. 2, as she became unconscious, applicant had escaped from there. At the pretext of marriage, later on applicant made physical relations several times with O.P. No. 2. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. No alleged incident has taken place. Applicant and O.P. No. 2 were friends. Applicant transferred money from time to time in the bank-account of O.P. No. 2 owing to alleged relationship. She lodged the F.I.R. due to counselling of some other persons in order to extract money from the applicant. There was no relationship between applicant and O.P. No. 2 except the simple friendship. First Information Report is highly belated. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. There is no evidence against the applicant. There is no motive to commit alleged offence. Even if prosecution story is taken as true, even then no offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out, hence this Petition. 5. Per-contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer. 6. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. There is no evidence against the applicant. There is no motive to commit alleged offence. Even if prosecution story is taken as true, even then no offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out, hence this Petition. 5. Per-contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer. 6. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 850, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held: "iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare case (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule." 7. Following other authorities can be cited on the aforesaid point: 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 . 8. Perusal of the record reveals that victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has implicated the applicant for causing rape upon her. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the concerned magistrate, she has specifically stated that applicant was known to her. They are distant relatives. Applicant's parents also used to come in the house of victim. On 23.03.2019 at about 5:00 p.m., applicant administered toxic substance in the sweets and served the victim through his hand. After half an hour, she became unconscious, thereafter applicant committed rape upon her. When she became conscious, applicant had gone from there. She called the applicant through her phone but the same was switched off. Thereafter she narrated the whole story to her mother. There are specific allegations of rape against the applicant. Appreciation of evidence is impermissible in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. This Court cannot embark upon enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the statements of witnesses. Thus, these are disputed questions of fact which can be adjudged upon in the trial only. 10. There are specific allegations of rape against the applicant. Appreciation of evidence is impermissible in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. This Court cannot embark upon enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the statements of witnesses. Thus, these are disputed questions of fact which can be adjudged upon in the trial only. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgements of Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 and Vineet Kumar and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2017) 13 SCC 369 . 11. I have gone through the aforesaid authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant and find that facts of the present case are entirely different and applicant cannot get the benefit of afore-cited rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 12. Upshot of the above discussion is that victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that applicant committed rape upon her. Appreciation of evidence is impermissible in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In this proceeding, it cannot be held that statement of victim recorded under Sections 161/164 Cr.P.C. is unworthy of credence. 13. In view of the above, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.