# Akhilesh Pal & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 1179
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-27
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 3527 of 2021
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akhilesh-pal-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50514
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 363, 366 & 376 - POCSO Act,
2012 - Section 3⁄4 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161 & 164 -
Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of - On
date of incident, informant daughter
abducted on pretext of marriage by all
accused persons - During investigation,
victim recovered, co-accused arrested -
Victim in her Statement deposed that she
left her village by her own freewill, they
both got married in Temple, living as
husband and wife, he did not lure her -
Applicant not played role in commission of
any crime, no iota of evidence that
applicants were knowing plan of victim
and co-accused - Not established that they
both facilitated by applicants or they ever
visited place where they both were living
before recovery of victim, not established
that applicants knowing whereabouts of
victim and co-accused - No evidence that
any amount for livelihood provided by
applicant during relevant period - No
evidence
that
applicant
abetted
or
conspired in commission of alleged crime.
(Para 2 to 6)

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Akhilesh Pal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1179
the
Learned
Special
Judge,
AntiCorruption, C.B.I (West), Lucknow in
Criminal Case No. 545 of 2017, rejecting
the
petitioner's
application
dated
07.03.2019 challenging the validity of the
prosecution
sanction
order
dated
26.10.2017, do not amount to abuse of
process of Court and do not defeat the ends
of justice and those do not suffer from any
illegality.

44. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. lacks merit and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1179
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 3527 of 2021

Akhilesh Pal & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Sujan Singh, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sri
Pankaj Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Radha Kant Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 363, 366 & 376 - POCSO Act,
2012 - Section 3⁄4 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161 & 164 -
Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of - On
date of incident, informant daughter
abducted on pretext of marriage by all
accused persons - During investigation,
victim recovered, co-accused arrested -
Victim in her Statement deposed that she
left her village by her own freewill, they
both got married in Temple, living as
husband and wife, he did not lure her -
Applicant not played role in commission of
any crime, no iota of evidence that
applicants were knowing plan of victim
and co-accused - Not established that they
both facilitated by applicants or they ever
visited place where they both were living
before recovery of victim, not established
that applicants knowing whereabouts of
victim and co-accused - No evidence that
any amount for livelihood provided by
applicant during relevant period - No
evidence
that
applicant
abetted
or
conspired in commission of alleged crime.
(Para 2 to 6)

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vineet Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Manu/SC/0351/2017

2. Sunder Babu & ors. Vs St. of Tamil Nadu,
(2009)14 SCC 244
3. Ahmad Ali Quraishi & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr., (2020) 13SCC 435

4. Suresh Kumar Goel & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr., (2019) 14 SCC 318

5. M.N. Ojha & ors. Vs Alok Kumar Srivastava &
ors., (2009) 9 SCC 682
(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi,
learned A.G.A for the State and perused the
record.

2. This application has been moved
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to quash the
entire proceedings of Case No. 31/2020
pending before learned Special Judge
POCSO Act, Azamgarh, District Azamgarh
as (State Vs. Kamlesh) arising out from
Case Crime No. 102 of 2019 registered
under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C and
1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3⁄4 of POCSO Act at Police Station Sidhari,
District Azamgarh with regard to the
applicants only.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that
informant Subedar Yadav, lodged an F.I.R
on 18.04.2019, regarding the incident dated
14.04.2019, under crime no. 102 of 2019,
under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C, in which
later on charge sheet has also been
submitted under Section 376 I.P.C. The
facts of the case are that on 14.09.2019
Kamlesh Pal S/o Jaggu Pal was talking to
his minor daughter aged about 16 years
privately, when his brother Hawaldar
Yadav reached there and reprimanded both
of them and chased them away and said
never to meet again. In the same night
about 09:00 p.m. accused Kamlesh Pal was
seen by his son Rajesh Yadav walking with
his brother Akhilesh Pal and Deepak Pal
(applicants) in the street next to his house.
In the same night his daughter had been
abducted on the pretext of marriage by all
the accused persons, when Akhilesh Pal
provided
mobile
number
of
accused
Kamlesh Pal, when he contacted on the
given number, it was switched off. He tried
to find a lot from his level, when he could
find, he went to the Police Station and
lodged the F.I.R.

4. During the course of investigation
the victim was recovered and accused
Kamlesh Pal was arrested and the statement
of the victim had been recorded. The victim
in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C
has deposed that on 14.04.2019, she left her
village by her own freewill, she called
Kamlesh Pal at 10:00 p.m when her parents
fell as sleep, they went to the Railway
station together on her own freewill. From
there they both went to Ludhiyan by train.
There they both got married in the Tample
and started living as husband and wife.
Kamlesh started working in the same steel
company, they both were living happlily
Kamlesh used to talk on his home by
phone. One day he came to know that his
mother's helth was bad, then both of them
were coming back to meet her mother
secretly on 18.Jan, 2020, seeing the Police
at Narauli Inter Section, Kamlesh moved
away and the police brought her to the
Police Station. She wants to live with
Kamlesh Pal.

5. The victim in her statement under
Section164 Cr.P.C has stated that she was
about 18 years old less than 2-3 months. On
14.04.2019, she had gone with Kamlesh of
her own free will to Ludhiyana. They both
knew each other for two three years, they
used to like each other, she went with him
on her own free will, he did not lure her,
they both got married and were living like
husband and wife. She has to live with
Kamlesh

6. From the above statement it is
crystal clear that the applicant had not
played role in the commission of any
crime. There is no iota of evidence that the
applicants were knowing the plan of the
victim and accused Kamlesh Pal. It could
not be established that they both were
facilitated by the applicants or they ever
visited the place where they both were
living before the recovery of the victim. It
could not be established that the applicants
were knowing the whereabouts of the
victim and accused Kamlesh Pal, at
Ludhiya. There is no evidence that any
amount for their livelihood had been
provided by the applicant during the
relevant period. From the evidence on
record it transpires that, it is a matter of
love affair between the a boy and a girl.
There is no evidence that the applicant
abetted or conspired in any way for the
8 All. Akhilesh Pal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1181
commission of the alleged crime. Even then
a charge-sheet had been submitted against
them under the aforesaid Sections.

7. This court is of the considered view
that no case is made out against the
applicants on the basis of evidence
available on record. Section 482 Cr.P.C has
been incorporated to prevent the abuse of
the process of the Court and to secure the
ends of justice. This Court can exercise its
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C if
it deems necessary to give effect to any
order under this Code.

Section 482 Cr.P.C is as under.

"482. Saving of inherent powers
of High Court.--Nothing in this Code shall
be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants placed reliance on the following
judgments :-

1. In Vineet Kumar and Ors. Vs.
State
of
U.P.
and
Ors.
Manu/SC/0351/2017, the petition under
Section
482
Cr.P.C
was
allowed
considering the facts of the case and the
Magistrate was directed to pass fresh order.

2. In Sunder Babu and Ors. Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu (2009)14 SCC 244
the Apex Court found that the proceeding
was maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wrecking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge, hence the
complaint was quashed.

3. In Ahmad Ali Quraishi and
another vs. State of U.P. and another
(2020) 13SCC 435, the complaint was
found to be mala-fide and animus in nature
maliciously instituted with ulterior motives
against the appellant-accused, hence the
criminal proceedings were quashed.

4. In Suresh Kumar Goel and
others vs. State of U.P. and another (2019)
14 SCC 318, the complaint was found to be
a counterblast to wrack vengeance by
complainant
against
his
family
for
disowning him. The Complaint was held to
be abuse of process of Court, hence the
discharge application under Section 245 (2)
Cr.P.C was allowed and complainant was
also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to each
applicant by way of costs, for initiating
frivolous litigation.

5. In M.N. Ojha and others vs.
Alok Kumar Srivastava and others
(2009) 9 SCC 682, complaint was found
clearly an abuse of judicial process to
harass the appellants. Averments and
allegations
in
complaint
were
not
disclosing commission of any offence by
the appellants. The case was found to be
a classic illustration of non application
of mind by trial court where Magistrate
had not scrutinized even the contents of
the complaint, leaving a site material
document available on record.

All the above citations apply in
favour of the appellants.

On the basis of the above
discussions when no case is made out
against the applicants, it is duty of this
Court to quash the entire proceedings of the
impugned criminal case in respect of the
applicants. Hence this application deserves
to be allowed.
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
O R D E R

This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C is allowed and the entire
proceeding of the aforesaid case crime
number against the applicants is hereby
quashed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1182
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 4744 of 2023

Puneet Sharan Tiwari & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri K.S. Tiwari, Sri Vivek Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Surendra Kumar Chaubey

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 & 308 - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161
- Against summoning order - Scope of -
Informant, P.W.-1 lodged first information
report against applicants and six other coaccused
persons,
alleging
they
were
illegally constructing toilet on their land -
When accused were prevented from doing
so, they started abusing him and beat
applicant with Lathi, Danda and fists,
when his mother reached for his rescue,
accused beat her causing fatal injuries -
After framing of charge, Court recorded
Statement of injured, P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and
eye
witness
P.W.-3
-
Considering
Statements of P.W.-1 to P.W.-3 recorded
in court in light of law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court regarding summoning
of persons who have not been named in
charge-sheet as accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C.,
thus, no illegality in impugned order
passed by trial court. (Para 2, 11, 13)

Application rejected. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Naveen Vs St. of Har., passed in SLP (Crl) No.
3446 of 2022 on 01.11.2022

2. Manjeet Singh Vs St. of Har., 2021 AIR SC
4247

3. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj. & ors., (2014)
3 SCC 92, (Para 105, 106)

4.
S.
Mohammad
Ispahani
Vs
Yogendra
Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226, (Para 35)

5. Rajesh Vs St. of Har., (2019) 6 SCC 368
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.)

1. Heard Shri K.S. Tiwari, learned
counsel for the applicants, Shri Surendra
Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for
opposite party no. 2, Shri Prashant Saxena,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the material available on record.

2. The present application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing the order dated 07.01.2023 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge-Ist,
Bhadohi at Gyanpur in S.T. No. 55 of
2019, State vs. Shaym Dhar Tiwari and
others, arising out of Case Crime No. 192
of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506,
308
I.P.C.,
Police
Station
Koirauna,
District Bhadohi. Vide the impugned order,
the Trial Court has summoned applicants
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for trial.

3. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the applicants that the
Trial Court has summoned them for trial
under the aforesaid sections without any
evidence. It has also been submitted that