Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 401 (ALL)

Pankaj Maurya v. State of U. P.

2025-02-28

VIKAS BUDHWAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : Vikas Budhwar, J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal (AoR No. A/A 2063/2013), holding brief of Sri Shravan Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned A.G.A. and Sri Anurag Upadhyay, for O.P. No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 13.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Court No.1, Mau including the entire proceeding of Special Session Case No. 917 of 2024 (State Vs. Pankaj Maurya), under Section 452, 504, 506, 354 IPC, Section 7/8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 & Section 3(1)Da of SC/ST Act, Police Station Saraylakhanshi, District Mau, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Court No.1, Mau as well as the impugned summoning order dated summoning order dated 22.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Juvenile Court), Court No.1/Additional Sessions Judge, Mau in Complaint Case No. 02 of 2023 (Sarita Vs. Pankaj Maurya), under Section 452, 504, 506, 354 IPC, Section 7/8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 & Section 3(1)Da of SC/ST Act, Police Station Saraylakhanshi, District Mau. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 under Section 156(3) of CrPC with an allegation that on 07.03.2023 at 10:00 in the night her daughter 'X' who was aged about 16 years was subjected to a treatment which encompassed outraging of modesty by the applicant and when she screamed then the complainant came forward to rescue her. However, the applicant thereafter overpowered her and tried to disrobe with intention of committing a bad act. Allegation is also to the extent that caste-based abuses were also hurled. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated as there happens to be a civil suit instituted by the father of the applicant and post his death, applicant stood substituted in the year 1992, in which there happens to be an order of the writ-Court directing the said proceeding to be decided expeditiously while not fixing a date more than a week. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is an outcome of the said civil suit and obtaining of an order, which became a basis for lodging of the criminal proceeding and the complaint stood lodged on 01.04.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is an outcome of the said civil suit and obtaining of an order, which became a basis for lodging of the criminal proceeding and the complaint stood lodged on 01.04.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned proceedings are nothing but a personal vendetta and a false implication. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that whatever might be there, what is to be seen at this stage is a narration of the allegation contained in the complaint, coupled with the statement under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The complaint alleges commission of the offences against minor daughter of O.P. No.2. The statement under Section 200 of CrPC of the complainant clearly corroborates with the complaint and further there happens to be the statement of 202 CrPC of the minor 'X' and other witnesses, who also corroborate the said incident. What is required in the present proceeding at present stage is the fact as to whether offences are made out or not, which in the opinion of the Court, in the facts of the case are made out, while reading the narration of the facts in the complaint and the statement under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC. Now, so far as the other aspects relating to a counterblast as a civil suit stood lodged by the applicant faction against the O.P. No.2 faction is concerned, the suit is stated to be pending since 1992, but the question of the counterblast or a false implication is a matter of defence, which is to be taken when the trial commences and the said stage is not yet arrived. 6. According interference in the present proceeding is declined. Application is consigned to record . At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a direction be issued for consideration of the bail. 7. This Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case applicant moves appropriate proceedings before the court below for enlargement of bail, then the same may be decided with most expedition in accordance with the law of the land.