# Fazlur Rahman & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 697
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 26271 of 2021
- **Bench:** Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/fazlur-rahman-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49248
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 482- Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 153-A, 153B, 124-A, 298, 505 & 120-B IPC -
Quashing of Order Dated 18.01.2020 - The
applicants sought to quash the order dated
18.01.2020 by the Additional Sessions Judge,
rejecting their applications, and related orders
granting prosecution sanction under Section
196 CrPC - Held, the order dated 18.01.2020
was unsustainable due to non-compliance
with prior High Court directions and failure to
address legal objections, warranting partial
quashing. (Paras 2, 3, 8, 9)

B. Section 196 CrPC - Requirement of
Prosecution Sanction - The charge sheets
were filed without prior sanction under
Section 196 CrPC, mandatory for offences
under Sections 153-A, 153-B, 124-A, 298,
505, and 120-B IPC - Held, the Magistrate's
failure to ensure sanction before taking
cognizance and committing the case to the
sessions court violated High Court's directions
dated
08.05.2003,
rendering
subsequent
proceedings flawed. (Paras 5, 6, 8)

C. Delay in Obtaining Sanction and Right
to Speedy Trial - The prosecution sanctions
were granted in 2018 and 2019, 17 years
after the charge sheets, with no explanation
for the delay - Held, this delay violated the
applicants' right to a speedy trial under Article
21 of the Constitution, but the issue requires
further adjudication by the trial court. (Para
6)

D. Non-Compliance with High Court
Directions - The Magistrate ignored the
High Court's order dated 08.05.2003 to verify
sanction before proceeding and committed
the case to the sessions court without
compliance - Held, such non-compliance was
contemptuous, and the sessions court erred in
not addressing this illegality while rejecting
the applicants' applications. (Paras 5, 8)

E.
Opportunity
for
Hearing
and
Discharge - The sessions court rejected the
applicants' applications without considering
legal objections or providing a hearing on the
point of charge - Held, the trial court must
reconsider all legal objections, including
discharge, with a reasoned order after
providing a hearing. (Paras 8, 10)

Application Partly Allowed.
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Fazlur Rahman & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
697
any good ground for quashing the
impugned proceeding.

17. From the perusal of the order
sheet, it appears that this case has been
pending since 2014, therefore, it would be
appropriate to direct the court below to
conclude the proceeding of Complaint
Case No.356 of 2014 (Om Prakash
Agrawal Vs. V.P. Govil and others),
under Section-465 IPC, Police StationChamanganj, District-Kanpur Nagar,
pending in the court of MM-IV, Kanpur
Nagar, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within one year from today.

18.

Accordingly,
the
present
application is rejected, with the aforesaid
observation.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 697
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 26271 of 2021
Connected with
Application U/S 482. No. 10551 of 2020

Fazlur Rahman & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Sushil Shukla, Sri Aditya Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 482- Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 153-A, 153B, 124-A, 298, 505 & 120-B IPC -
Quashing of Order Dated 18.01.2020 - The
applicants sought to quash the order dated
18.01.2020 by the Additional Sessions Judge,
rejecting their applications, and related orders
granting prosecution sanction under Section
196 CrPC - Held, the order dated 18.01.2020
was unsustainable due to non-compliance
with prior High Court directions and failure to
address legal objections, warranting partial
quashing. (Paras 2, 3, 8, 9)

B. Section 196 CrPC - Requirement of
Prosecution Sanction - The charge sheets
were filed without prior sanction under
Section 196 CrPC, mandatory for offences
under Sections 153-A, 153-B, 124-A, 298,
505, and 120-B IPC - Held, the Magistrate's
failure to ensure sanction before taking
cognizance and committing the case to the
sessions court violated High Court's directions
dated
08.05.2003,
rendering
subsequent
proceedings flawed. (Paras 5, 6, 8)

C. Delay in Obtaining Sanction and Right
to Speedy Trial - The prosecution sanctions
were granted in 2018 and 2019, 17 years
after the charge sheets, with no explanation
for the delay - Held, this delay violated the
applicants' right to a speedy trial under Article
21 of the Constitution, but the issue requires
further adjudication by the trial court. (Para
6)

D. Non-Compliance with High Court
Directions - The Magistrate ignored the
High Court's order dated 08.05.2003 to verify
sanction before proceeding and committed
the case to the sessions court without
compliance - Held, such non-compliance was
contemptuous, and the sessions court erred in
not addressing this illegality while rejecting
the applicants' applications. (Paras 5, 8)

E.
Opportunity
for
Hearing
and
Discharge - The sessions court rejected the
applicants' applications without considering
legal objections or providing a hearing on the
point of charge - Held, the trial court must
reconsider all legal objections, including
discharge, with a reasoned order after
providing a hearing. (Paras 8, 10)

Application Partly Allowed.
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

1. Mahendra Lal Das Vs St. of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC
149

2. Vakil Prasad Singh Vs St. of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC
355

3. Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka Vs King
Emperor, ILR 1978 Bom 316

4. Basdeo Aggarwalla Vs King Emperor, (1945) 58
LW 313 (FB)

5. Manoj Rai Vs St. of MP, (1999) 6 SCC 728

6. Abdul Mian Vs The King, (1951) CrLJ 710 (Patna
HC)

7. St. of U.P. Vs Gayur, 2019 SCC Online All 4920
(Allahabad HC)

8. Arun Jaitley Vs St. of U.P., 2015 SCC Online All
9413 (Allahabad HC)

9. Balwant Singh Vs St. of Punj., (1995) 3 SCC 214

10. Manzar Sayeed Khan Vs St. of Maharashtra,
(2007) 5 SCC 1

11. Common Cause Vs UOI, WP (C) No. 683 of
2016

12. Patricia Mukhim Vs St. of Meghalaya, 2021
SCC Online SC 258

13. Chakra Behara Vs Balakrishna Mohapatra, AIR
1963 Ori 23

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned
counsel for the applicants Sri Siddharth
Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by
Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla & Ravikant Shukla,
learned counsel for the applicant learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Criminal misc. application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. No.26271 of 2021 has
been filed by the accused-applicants to
quash
the
impugned
order
dated
18.01.2020, as passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Gorakhpur, in
Sessions Trial No.385 of 2019, arising out
of Case Crime No.609 of 2001, under
sections 153-A, 153-B, 124-A, 298, 505,
120-B,
IPC,
Police
Station
Kotwali,
District Gorakhpur (State Vs. Shahid Badr
Falahi & others), as well as the impugned
orders dated 19.11.2018 and 16.11.2019,
passed by the State Government, granting
sanction under section 196 Cr.P.C. against
the accused-applicants for their prosecution
in the aforesaid criminal
case, and
consequently to quash the impugned
criminal proceeding.

3. Another application under section
482 Cr.P.C. No.10551 of 2020 is filed by
the co-accused Human Ahmad Siddiqui
with a prayer to quash the impugned order
dated 18.01.2020, passed by Additional
District Judge, Court No.6, Gorakhpur, in
S.T. No.386 of 2019 (State Vs. Hamam
Ahmad Siddiqui), arising out of Case
Crime No.609 of 2001, under sections 153A, 153-B, 124-A, 505, 298, 120-B, IPC,
Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur,
as
well
as
sanctioning
order
dated
19.11.2018.

4. Both the cases are connected to
each other and related to same matter,
hence being disposed of by a common
judgment.

5. An FIR, Case Crime No.609 of
2001, under sections 153-A, 153-B, 124-A,
298, 505, 120-B, IPC, was lodged at Police
Station Kotwali City, District Gorakhpur,
on 21.09.2001 regarding the incident dated
15.09.2001, naming Shahid Badra Falahi,
Hamam
Mohammed.
During
the
investigation the name of other co-accused
4 All. Fazlur Rahman & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
699
persons also came into light. After
investigation one charge sheet dated
23.01.2002 filed against the accusedapplicants Shahid Badra Falahi, Fazlur
Rahman, Daud Husain Khan & Rashid
Husain and another charge sheet dated
30.07.2002 was filed in absconder against
Humam @ Humam Ahmad Siddiqui.

Learned
Magistrate
taken
cognizance on the first charge sheet on
04.05.2002. The accused-applicants of the
aforesaid charge sheet challenged the
cognizance
order
in
Criminal
Misc.
Application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
No.2524 of 2003, and this Court, disposed
of the aforesaid application vide order
dated 08.05.2003, directing the court,
taking cognizance, to examine whether the
previous
sanction
of
the
appropriate
Government, has been obtained or not,
which is condition precedent for taking
taking cognizance. It further directed that
the court, before proceeding further in the
matter shall first decide this point and
thereafter pass the order according to law,
keeping in view section 196 of the Cr.P.C.,
within one month from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.

The learned Magistrate without
making compliance of the aforesaid order
committed the case to the court of sessions
on 27.07.2006. The accused-applicants
moved an application before the court of
sessions under section 227 Cr.P.C. for
discharge on the ground that cognizance
has been taken and case has been
committed
without
any
prosecution
sanction, which is a condition precedent
under section 196 Cr.P.C. The sessions
court on the aforesaid application passed an
order on 29.09.2007 and remitted the
matter back to the learned Magistrate to
ensure the compliance of the order passed
by the High Court and pass appropriate
order thereupon and proceed according to
law. The matter remain pending in the
court of learned Magistrate and ultimately
on 02.09.2019 the learned Magistrate again
committed the case to the court of sessions.
Copies of the prosecution sanction dated
19.11.2018 and 16.11.2019 are on record,
but it is not clear, when this prosecution
sanction was filed in the court by
prosecution.

On the charge sheet filed against
co-accused
Humam
Ahmad
Siddiqui,
cognizance was taken on 16.08.2002. As
the charge sheet was in absconder, he was
declared as absconder, and the case was
fixed for proceeding under section 299
Cr.P.C. The same proceeding continued till
10.03.2008. On 23.06.2008 the accused
was arrested and produced before the
learned Magistrate, later on he was
enlarged on bail. The case remain pending
for supplying copies and thereafter fixed
for committal proceeding and ultimately
this case was also committed to the court of
sessions vide order dated 02.09.2019.

 In Sessions Trial No.386 of 2019
and Sessions Trial No.385 of 2019 separate
applications were moved by the accusedapplicants, alleging therein that direction be
issued to the learned Magistrate in the light
of the order of Hon'ble High Court dated
08.05.2003 and further order of Additional
Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.,
Court
No.2,
Gorakhpur. It is also alleged that the High
Court vide order dated 08.05.2003 has
given some directions to the learned
Magistrate, but the learned Magistrate
without
making
compliance
of
the
directions of the High Court has committed
the case to the court of sessions. The court
of Additional Sessions Judge, directed the
learned
Magistrate
vide
order
dated
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
29.08.2007 to consider, whether sanction
under section 196 Cr.P.C has been obtained
or
not.
Thereafter,
after
obtaining
prosecution sanction the case has been
again committed to the court of sessions.
Both the above applications have been
rejected by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.6, Gorakhpur, vide order
dated 18.01.2020, passed separately in
both the sessions trial.

6. Learned counsel for the
applicants vehemently contended that
charge sheet was filed without obtaining
requisite prosecution sanction of section
196 Cr.P.C., which is mandatory for
taking
cognizance
of
the
offence
complained of, but the learned Magistrate
failed to consider it and taken cognizance
on the charge sheet. This order was
challenged before the High Court and the
Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
08.05.2003
directed
the
learned
Magistrate to consider the necessity of
the prosecution sanction required under
section
196
Cr.P.C.
and
pass
an
appropriate order on it within a month.
The learned Magistrate failed to comply
this
order
and
without
making
compliance of the aforesaid order has
committed the case to the court of
sessions. The matter was raised before
the court of sessions and vide order dated
29.09.2007 the court of sessions remitted
the matter to the learned Magistrate for
ensuring compliance of the order of
Hon'ble High Court dated 08.05.2003.
The learned Magistrate kept the matter
pending for nearly 17 years. Ultimately,
prosecution
sanction
orders
dated
19.11.2018 and 16.11.2019 were passed
by the State Government. The learned
Magistrate
without
ensuring
the
compliance of the Hon'ble High Court
order dated 08.05.2003, committed the case
again to the court of sessions. The learned
counsel for the applicant contended that
post cognizance sanction cannot cure the
illegality. It is also contended that learned
trial court has clearly failed to notice that
the delay in obtaining the requisite sanction
for prosecution for the last 17 years was
attributable to the prosecuting agency and
no fault left with accused-applicants, who
are facing that proceeding since last 19
years causing irreparable loss to the social
esteem and reputation. The impugned
criminal proceeding, therefore, are clear
abuse of the process of the court.

It is further contended that the
learned Sessions Judge also failed to notice
that the constitutional guarantee of speedy
trial and justice under Article 21 of the
Constitution of the accused-applicants has
been clearly violated in the instant case as
the prosecuting agency has failed to offer
any plausible explanation whatsoever for
the delay of 17 years in obtaining requisite
sanction for their prosecution. The learned
Judge also failed to notice that in such
situation permitting further prosecution
against the accused-applicants after 17
years would be a travesty of justice and a
mere ritual or formality, which will burden
unnecessarily the court. A period of nearly
20 years have passed since the registration
of the FIR against the accused-applicants,
now the trial proceedings according to law
have yet to be commenced as the State
Govt. without any explanation of delay of
17 years since submission of charge-sheet
has granted requisite sanction, the accusedapplicants have been deprived of their
constitutional right to speedy trial flowing
from Article 21 of the Constitution
therefore
further
continuation
of
the
impugned criminal proceedings pending
against them are clearly unwarranted and
abuse of process of court.
4 All. Fazlur Rahman & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
701

The learned counsel for the
applicants placed reliance on the case of
'Mahendra Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar
and others', (2002) 1 SCC 149 and 'Vakil
Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar', (2009)
3 SCC 355.

It is also contended on the part of
the accused Humam Ahmad Siddiqui that
Humam Ahmad @ Hamam Ahmad has
been mentioned in the FIR as Humam
Mohammad. Similarly sanction order also
speaks of Humam Mohammad. The real
name of applicant is Humam Ahmad
Siddiqui son of Ansarul Hassan, resident of
Hanif Nagar, Near Masjid Belal, Pyare
Patti
Road,
District
Sultanpur.
The
applicant has no alias. A deliberate attempt
has been made to implicate the applicant by
using alias, on the identity of the applicant
without any basis or material. For the last
35 years, the applicant is not residing in
Village Teari, Police Station Gosaiganj,
District Sultanpur and is residing at 49,
Khairabad (Lucknow Naka) Sultanpur.
After the year 2000 applicant is residing at
Hanif Nagar, Near Masjid Belal, Pyare
Patti
Road,
District
Sultanpur.
The
applicant is registered with the Bar Council
of U.P. as an advocate in the year 2000 on
the aforesaid address. Due to deliberate
inclusion of the name of applicant on an
address, where the applicant did not reside,
he never new about the pendency of the
any proceeding against him. For the first
time he came to know the proceeding in the
year 2008. Thereafter he was arrested and
produced before the concerned court and he
was bailed out on 25.07.2008. Since then
the proceeding is continuing against him. It
is also submitted that applicant has moved
applications
dated
26.05.2009
and
29.03.20211 seeking indulgence of the
learned Magistrate to return the charge
sheet and discharge the applicant in
absence of compliance of section 196
Cr.P.C. The applicant has been denied an
opportunity to seek discharge and the learned
trial court misinterpretating the application
filed before it straightaway directed framing
of charges against the applicant. Even
otherwise, on the fact of the case, FIR is
taken at its face value, does not constitute any
offence, much less a cognizable offence
punishable under sections 153-A, 153-B,
124-A, IPC alongwith sections 505 and 506,
IPC. There is no material on record to
demonstrate that the applicant was member
of any unlawful/illegal organization. It is
further contended that prosecution sanction
with regard to accused-applicants Fazlur
Rahman, Daud Husain and Rashid Husain
have been granted by the Government vide
order dated 16.11.2019, while the learned
Magistrate has committed the entire case to
the court of sessions before it on 02.09.2019,
which includes the case of aforesaid three
accused also.

Learned counsel for the applicants
placed reliance on the following decisions of
Hon'ble Apex Court as well as High Court:-

"(i)
Gokulchand
Dwarkadas
Morarka Vs. Kind Emperor, ILR 1978 Bom
316.

(ii) Basdeo Aggarwalla Vs Kind
Emperor (1945 58 LW 313 (FB).

(iii) Manoj Rai & Ors Vs. State of
MP (1999) 6 SCC 728.

(iv) Abdul Mian & Ors Vs. The
King (1951 CrLJ 710 Patna HC.

(v) State of U.P. Vs. Gayur & Ors
2019 SCC Online All 4920 Allahabad HC.

(vi) Arun Jaitley Vs. State of U.P.,
2015 SCC Online All 9413 Allahabad HC.

(vii) Balwant Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (1995), 3 SCC 214,

(viii) Manzar Sayeed Khan Vs.
State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1.
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ix) Common Cause & Anr Vs.
UOI, WP (C) No.683 of 2016.

(x) Patricia Mukhim Vs. State of
Meghalaya, 2021 SCC Online SC 258,

(xi) Chakra Behara & Ors Vs.
Balakrishna Mohapatra, AIR 1963 Ori 23.

(xii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 336."

7. It is undisputed that both the charge
sheets were filed without compliance of
section 196 Cr.P.C., regarding prosecution
sanction, which was necessary for taking
cognizance for offence complained of.
Cognizance order was challenged before
this Court. Following directions was given
vide order dated 08.05.2003:-

"It is hereby directed to the court
taking cognizance to examine whether the
previous
sanction
of
the
appropriate
Government has been obtained or not
which is a condition precedent for taking
cognizance. The court below proceeding
further in the matter shall first decide this
point
and
thereafter
pass
the
order
according to law, keeping in view Section
196 of the Code of Criminal procedure,
within one month from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.

With this direction the application
is disposed of finally."

8.

Unfortunately
the
learned
Magistrate without making any compliance
of the aforesaid order, committed the case
to the court of sessions. When the matter
was raised before the court of sessions, it
remitted the matter to learned Magistrate to
pass appropriate order in compliance of the
direction of the High Court. The most
unfortunate aspects is that the learned
Magistrate kept the matter pending for
years. The applications were moved before
him by the accused persons, but the learned
Magistrate failed to pass any order on it. He
also failed to comply the order of this Court
dated 08.05.2003, within stipulated period
of one month, rather he ignored it
completely and kept the matter pending till
he finally committed the case to the court
of
sessions
on
02.09.2019,
without
complying the order of High Court. The
aforesaid act of the learned Magistrate is
contemptuous as well. When the matter
was again committed to the court of
sessions, the accused-applicants moved
applications before the sessions court, but
the
learned
sessions
court
without
appreciating the facts and law on the point
and without taking into consideration the
legal provision on flimsy ground has
rejected the application making observation
that the case is at its preliminary stage,
even after more than 16 years have lapsed
since 2003, which is an example that how a
case can be prolonged on technical point.
The aforesaid comments of the learned
sessions court is wholly unwarranted. In the
delay of the proceeding, clearly there is no
role of the accused-applicants. The cause of
the delay is apparent, which is latches on
the part of the prosecution itself as well as
on the part of the learned Magistrate, who
has failed to comply the order of High
Court dated 08.05.2003. The learned
sessions court should have considered the
consequences of the non compliance of the
order of the High Court dated 08.05.2003
and further the effect of post cognizance
prosecution
sanction
and
further
the
prosecution sanction of three accused is
post committal proceeding. It should have
also considered the legality and validity of
the entire proceeding from the very
beginning that of from the cognizance
stage. It is also evident that while rejecting
the application moved by the accuseapplicants, the learned sessions court has
4 All. Anshul Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
703
posted the matter for framing charge,
without giving any opportunity of hearing
on the point of charge to the accusedapplicant. As the legal points raised by the
accused-applicants have not been decided by
the sessions court, it will not be proper for
this Court to enter into merits of the
arguments advanced by the learned counsels
for the parties. It will be just and proper to
direct the trial court i.e. the concerned court
of sessions where cases are pending to
consider all the legal aspects and the legal
objections, raised by the accused-applicants,
provide them opportunity for hearing on the
point of charge and then pass an appropriate
order in accordance with the provisions of
law.

9. From the aforesaid discussion it is
clear that order dated 18.01.2020 is not
sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be
quashed.

10. The application under section 482
Cr.P.C. is hereby partly allowed only in
respect
of
quashing
the
order
dated
18.01.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge,
Court
No.6,
Gorakhpur.
The
applicants may move a fresh application
within 15 days after obtaining a certified
copy, raising all their legal objections and
legal points against the prosecution and may
also pray for discharge. The sessions court
after providing opportunity of hearing to both
the parties will dispose of the same with a
reasoned order in accordances with the
provisions of law, within one month from the
date of filing of the such applications before
it.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 703
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 27063 of 2023

Anshul Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Gulab Chandra, Sri Rupesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973
-Section
482-
Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 376, 377,
393, 504, 506, 323, 427 - Quashing of
Charge-Sheet and Cognizance Order Denied -
The applicant sought to quash the charge-sheet
dated 25.05.2023 and cognizance order dated
05.06.2023 in Criminal Case No. 46985 of 2023
under Sections 376, 377, 393, 504, 506, 323,
427 IPC - Held, a prima facie case of rape and
related offences was established based on the
allegations and Section 164 CrPC Statement,
warranting trial and not quashing. (Paras 2, 15,
16)

B. Section 376 IPC - Rape on False
Promise of Marriage - The opposite party no.
2 alleged that the applicant, a police officer,
forcibly
raped
her
after
administering
a
contaminated cold drink and maintained a
physical relationship under a false promise of
marriage - Held, as per Shambhu Kharwar, a
false promise of marriage known to be false
from inception vitiates consent, making out a
prima facie case of rape. (Paras 9, 14, 15, 16)

C. Abuse of Position by Police Officer - The
applicant, as the Investigating Officer in a prior
case, allegedly exploited his authority to coerce
the opposite party no. 2 into a physical
relationship - Held, the misuse of official
position to exploit the victim strengthens the
prima facie case against the applicant. (Paras
13, 16)

D. Previous FIR and Final Report - The opposite
party no. 2 had lodged a prior FIR (Case Crime
No. 392 of 2022) against the applicant, which