# Satendra Kumar & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 643
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-29
- **Bench:** Harsh Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satendra-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44179
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal law - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - quashing of proceedings - Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC - Section
3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act - calling by caste name - public view - charge sheet - cognizance - non-bailable
warrants - without issuing summons - Section 73 Cr.P.C. - abuse of process of law - inherent powers -
quashing refused - order issuing non-bailable warrants - process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. - liable to be
quashed - application allowed partly.

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the opposite party no.2 firstly lodged N.C.R. on 19.11.2002
with false allegations against applicants and on 5.12.2002 moved an application under sections 155 and 156
(3) Cr.P.C. for addition of section 2/3 S.C./S.T. Act with the allegations that despite the fact that the
applicants called him with caste name and abused by naming mother-sister and beaten him, but despite
making complaint with Senior Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range
through application for addition of offence under section 2/3 S.C./S.T. Act no action was taken; that on above
application of opposite party no.2, the Magistrate concerned directed to register the case and the police of
police station concerned converted the N.C.R. into case crime no.C-5 of 2002, under sections 323, 504, 506
IPC and Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act; that above N.C.R. and F.I.R. have been lodged with false and baseless
allegations; that the real fact is that the first informant being Gram Pradhan was making misuse of his office
and so the applicants moved an application on 27.6.2002 to S.D.M., Meerut against his illegal acts of
attempting to convert the nature of public land plot no.204, supported with affidavit of applicant no.1 at
annexure no.9 and on the complaint so made by the applicants, vide order dated 18.12.2002 Annexure no.10,
the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari stopped the operation of Gramnidhi Accounts 1,2 and 3 by the signatures
of first informant, Bhoop Chandra opposite party no.2; that in order to counter blast, the above complaint,
made against the first informant, he has lodged false complaint under N.C.R. and got it converted into F.I.R.
by getting it added the offence under section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act; that the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of
S.C./S.T. Act, are not attracted in this case, as it is nowhere mentioned in the F.I.R. or application under
section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that "applicants are not members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and
intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the respondent no.2 within public view" and so no
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, is made out against the applicants; that since the
allegation levelled in the report does not state that the applicants being not members of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe committed insult and intimidation to opposite party no.2 and

## Text

7 All. Satendra Kumar & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
643
22. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow
by Senior Registrar of the Court so that effective investigation is concluded at the earliest.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No.- 3084 Of 2003

Satendra Kumar & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
I.K. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt.Advocate, B. Ram

Criminal law - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - quashing of proceedings - Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC - Section
3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act - calling by caste name - public view - charge sheet - cognizance - non-bailable
warrants - without issuing summons - Section 73 Cr.P.C. - abuse of process of law - inherent powers -
quashing refused - order issuing non-bailable warrants - process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. - liable to be
quashed - application allowed partly.

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the opposite party no.2 firstly lodged N.C.R. on 19.11.2002
with false allegations against applicants and on 5.12.2002 moved an application under sections 155 and 156
(3) Cr.P.C. for addition of section 2/3 S.C./S.T. Act with the allegations that despite the fact that the
applicants called him with caste name and abused by naming mother-sister and beaten him, but despite
making complaint with Senior Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range
through application for addition of offence under section 2/3 S.C./S.T. Act no action was taken; that on above
application of opposite party no.2, the Magistrate concerned directed to register the case and the police of
police station concerned converted the N.C.R. into case crime no.C-5 of 2002, under sections 323, 504, 506
IPC and Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act; that above N.C.R. and F.I.R. have been lodged with false and baseless
allegations; that the real fact is that the first informant being Gram Pradhan was making misuse of his office
and so the applicants moved an application on 27.6.2002 to S.D.M., Meerut against his illegal acts of
attempting to convert the nature of public land plot no.204, supported with affidavit of applicant no.1 at
annexure no.9 and on the complaint so made by the applicants, vide order dated 18.12.2002 Annexure no.10,
the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari stopped the operation of Gramnidhi Accounts 1,2 and 3 by the signatures
of first informant, Bhoop Chandra opposite party no.2; that in order to counter blast, the above complaint,
made against the first informant, he has lodged false complaint under N.C.R. and got it converted into F.I.R.
by getting it added the offence under section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act; that the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of
S.C./S.T. Act, are not attracted in this case, as it is nowhere mentioned in the F.I.R. or application under
section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that "applicants are not members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and
intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the respondent no.2 within public view" and so no
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, is made out against the applicants; that since the
allegation levelled in the report does not state that the applicants being not members of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe committed insult and intimidation to opposite party no.2 and the insult and intimidation was
made with an intention to humiliate the member of the S.C./S.T. community, mere and in absence of such
averments insult or intimidation, if any, would not attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act;
that the Investigating Officer without collecting sufficient evidence and without considering that the main
ingredients, as required under the provisions of section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, is absent from the complaint
made by first informant, has submitted charge sheet and the Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance
without applying his mind to the facts of the case; that moreover upon submission of charge sheet, the
Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance without issuing any summons, directly issued non bailable
warrants, which is against the procedure prescribed by law; that in the circumstances, the impugned orders
dated 18.2.2003 and 27.3.2003 of taking cognizance and issuing non-bailable warrants, respectively, as well
as further proceedings in criminal case no.378 of 2003 (State Vs. Satendra and others), under sections 323,
504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Jani, District Meerut pending before Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Meerut are liable to be quashed. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the
applicant has relied on (2009) 1 SCC (Crl) 446.(Para-3)

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the F.I.R. of opposite party no.2 a person of scheduled caste was not
lodged under relevant sections rather case was registered at N.C.R. under influence of people of upper caste;
that upon application of opposite party no.2 and order of the court, the case was rightly converted in case
crime no. C-5 of 2002, under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act and upon
investigation and finding sufficient material evidence against the applicants, charge sheet was submitted,
upon which cognizance has rightly been taken by the court concerned; that it is wrong to say that application
does not contain the necessary ingredients of an offence, as required under provisions of section 3 (1) (x)
S.C./S.T. Act; that undisputedly, the applicants are Brahamins being Sharma by caste and the first informant
opposite party no.2 belongs to scheduled caste; that admittedly Brahamins do not fall under any of the
categories in scheduled castes or scheduled tribes; that it has been clearly mentioned in F.I.R. that on
11.11.2002, the opposite party no.2 was going from village Thaulri to his village Basa Tikri and when he
reached near Kosi Waley Peer at about 5:00 p.m., applicants, who were standing on the public way after
calling him by caste name and abusing by the name of mother-sister committed marpeet with him, as he had
refused to allot the land of "Land Management Committee", in favour of applicants; that admittedly applicants
are Sharma by caste and belong to upper caste and since the opposite party no.2 belongs to scheduled caste,
and was elected village pradhan, the applicants felt ill of the election of a member of scheduled caste, for the
post of village pradhan of village Bhavi, and in order to interrupt in his smooth working as well as to harm and
harass him, false complaints were moved by them against opposite party no.2; that on above complaints
moved on behalf of applicants, the members of upper caste at Annexure no.9, an order was also obtained at
Annexure no.10, without adopting any proceedings in accordance with rules; that on representation made by
the villagers of village Bhavi, the Commissioner of Meerut Division, Meerut upon finding that without
conducting any proceedings in accordance with rules, the village pradhan has been found guilty, he directed
for inquiry in accordance with rules and prescribed procedure vide order at A-11; that in counter affidavit filed
by opposite party no.2, papers filed at Annexure C.A.-2 show that complaints were made by people of village
Bhavi (under Gram Panchayat Bhavi) to D.M. Meerut with its copies to S.D.M., Tehsildar and S.S.P., Meerut
against the unlawful acts of the applicants and their associates of upper caste, against persons of scheduled
caste; that since the applicants and their associates were interfering with the meeting of opposite party no.2
in Primary Pathshala Bhavi, as well as due to their interference with the working of Gram Panchayat and
demand of money, the opposite party no.2 made complaints to B.D.O. and D.P.R.O. concerned of District
Meerut on 8.4.2002 at C.A.-2; that after a period of two months from the above complaints at C.A.-2 against
the applicants and their associates, the applicants moved false complaint against the alleged irregularities of
opposite party no.2 and then committed the incident in question on 11.11.2002 on account of hate towards
persons of schedule caste and scheduled tribes; that despite affording opportunity and granting no more time
7 All. Satendra Kumar & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
645
for filing rejoinder affidavit on 27.4.2006, the applicants could not dare to file any rejoinder affidavit during
last more than 10 years from 27.4.2006; that as per the averments made in N.C.R., that opposite party no.2
was going from village Thaulri to his village and when he reached near jungle ke peer, the applicants
committed incident in question, which shows that the incident has taken place on the public way in public
view and not in the forests; that from the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this
stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants; that issues of fact raised by this
application are subject matter of jurisdiction of trial court and can be looked into only by trial court upon
evidence before it and may not be decided in this application.(Para-4)

Held:Paras(13-15)
1.Considering the totality of facts, I find that only the order dated 18.2.2003 to the extent of issuing nonbailable warrants and order dated 27.3.2003, issuing non bailable warrants and process under section 82
Cr.P.C., are liable to be quashed and the application under section 482 Cr.P.C., is liable to be allowed partly to
above extent and is liable to be rejected partly, for the prayer for quashing the cognizance order dated
18.2.2003 or for quashing the proceedings in criminal case no.378 of 2003 (State Vs. Satendra and others),
under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Jani, District Meerut pending
before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
2.The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of accordingly with the observation that if the applicants
appear before the Magistrate/Special Judge concerned and move applications for bail, the same shall be
decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
3.Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Case Law discussed:

1.Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 446 (Para-6) 2.R.P. Kapur Vs.
State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 (Para-7) 3.State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 (Para-7)
4.State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 (Para-7) 5.Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.
Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 (Para-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the
State.

2. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing the criminal proceedings
in criminal case no.378 of 2003 (State Vs. Satendra and others), under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Jani, District Meerut pending before Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the opposite party no.2 firstly lodged
N.C.R. on 19.11.2002 with false allegations against applicants and on 5.12.2002 moved an
application under sections 155 and 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for addition of section 2/3 S.C./S.T. Act with
the allegations that despite the fact that the applicants called him with caste name and abused by
naming mother-sister and beaten him, but despite making complaint with Senior Superintendent of
Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range through application for addition of
offence under section 2/3 S.C./S.T. Act no action was taken; that on above application of opposite
party no.2, the Magistrate concerned directed to register the case and the police of police station
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

concerned converted the N.C.R. into case crime no.C-5 of 2002, under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act; that above N.C.R. and F.I.R. have been lodged with false and
baseless allegations; that the real fact is that the first informant being Gram Pradhan was making
misuse of his office and so the applicants moved an application on 27.6.2002 to S.D.M., Meerut
against his illegal acts of attempting to convert the nature of public land plot no.204, supported
with affidavit of applicant no.1 at annexure no.9 and on the complaint so made by the applicants,
vide order dated 18.12.2002 Annexure no.10, the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari stopped the
operation of Gramnidhi Accounts 1,2 and 3 by the signatures of first informant, Bhoop Chandra
opposite party no.2; that in order to counter blast, the above complaint, made against the first
informant, he has lodged false complaint under N.C.R. and got it converted into F.I.R. by getting it
added the offence under section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act; that the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of
S.C./S.T. Act, are not attracted in this case, as it is nowhere mentioned in the F.I.R. or application
under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that "applicants are not members of scheduled caste or scheduled
tribe and intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the respondent no.2 within
public view" and so no offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, is made out
against the applicants; that since the allegation levelled in the report does not state that the
applicants being not members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe committed insult and
intimidation to opposite party no.2 and the insult and intimidation was made with an intention to
humiliate the member of the S.C./S.T. community, mere and in absence of such averments insult or
intimidation, if any, would not attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act; that the
Investigating Officer without collecting sufficient evidence and without considering that the main
ingredients, as required under the provisions of section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, is absent from the
complaint made by first informant, has submitted charge sheet and the Magistrate concerned has
taken cognizance without applying his mind to the facts of the case; that moreover upon submission
of charge sheet, the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance without issuing any summons,
directly issued non bailable warrants, which is against the procedure prescribed by law; that in the
circumstances, the impugned orders dated 18.2.2003 and 27.3.2003 of taking cognizance and
issuing non-bailable warrants, respectively, as well as further proceedings in criminal case no.378
of 2003 (State Vs. Satendra and others), under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of
S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Jani, District Meerut pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut
are liable to be quashed. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied
on (2009) 1 SCC (Crl) 446.

4. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the F.I.R. of opposite party no.2 a person of
scheduled caste was not lodged under relevant sections rather case was registered at N.C.R. under
influence of people of upper caste; that upon application of opposite party no.2 and order of the
court, the case was rightly converted in case crime no. C-5 of 2002, under sections 323, 504, 506
IPC and Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act and upon investigation and finding sufficient material
evidence against the applicants, charge sheet was submitted, upon which cognizance has rightly
been taken by the court concerned; that it is wrong to say that application does not contain the
necessary ingredients of an offence, as required under provisions of section 3 (1) (x) S.C./S.T. Act;
that undisputedly, the applicants are Brahamins being Sharma by caste and the first informant
opposite party no.2 belongs to scheduled caste; that admittedly Brahamins do not fall under any of
7 All. Satendra Kumar & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
647
the categories in scheduled castes or scheduled tribes; that it has been clearly mentioned in F.I.R.
that on 11.11.2002, the opposite party no.2 was going from village Thaulri to his village Basa Tikri
and when he reached near Kosi Waley Peer at about 5:00 p.m., applicants, who were standing on
the public way after calling him by caste name and abusing by the name of mother-sister
committed marpeet with him, as he had refused to allot the land of "Land Management
Committee", in favour of applicants; that admittedly applicants are Sharma by caste and belong to
upper caste and since the opposite party no.2 belongs to scheduled caste, and was elected village
pradhan, the applicants felt ill of the election of a member of scheduled caste, for the post of village
pradhan of village Bhavi, and in order to interrupt in his smooth working as well as to harm and
harass him, false complaints were moved by them against opposite party no.2; that on above
complaints moved on behalf of applicants, the members of upper caste at Annexure no.9, an order
was also obtained at Annexure no.10, without adopting any proceedings in accordance with rules;
that on representation made by the villagers of village Bhavi, the Commissioner of Meerut
Division, Meerut upon finding that without conducting any proceedings in accordance with rules,
the village pradhan has been found guilty, he directed for inquiry in accordance with rules and
prescribed procedure vide order at A-11; that in counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2,
papers filed at Annexure C.A.-2 show that complaints were made by people of village Bhavi (under
Gram Panchayat Bhavi) to D.M. Meerut with its copies to S.D.M., Tehsildar and S.S.P., Meerut
against the unlawful acts of the applicants and their associates of upper caste, against persons of
scheduled caste; that since the applicants and their associates were interfering with the meeting of
opposite party no.2 in Primary Pathshala Bhavi, as well as due to their interference with the
working of Gram Panchayat and demand of money, the opposite party no.2 made complaints to
B.D.O. and D.P.R.O. concerned of District Meerut on 8.4.2002 at C.A.-2; that after a period of two
months from the above complaints at C.A.-2 against the applicants and their associates, the
applicants moved false complaint against the alleged irregularities of opposite party no.2 and then
committed the incident in question on 11.11.2002 on account of hate towards persons of schedule
caste and scheduled tribes; that despite affording opportunity and granting no more time for filing
rejoinder affidavit on 27.4.2006, the applicants could not dare to file any rejoinder affidavit during
last more than 10 years from 27.4.2006; that as per the averments made in N.C.R., that opposite
party no.2 was going from village Thaulri to his village and when he reached near jungle ke peer,
the applicants committed incident in question, which shows that the incident has taken place on the
public way in public view and not in the forests; that from the material on record and looking into
the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants;
that issues of fact raised by this application are subject matter of jurisdiction of trial court and can
be looked into only by trial court upon evidence before it and may not be decided in this
application.

5. Before proceedings further, I find it proper to reproduce the provisions of section 3(1)(x)
of S.C./S.T. Act and section 73 of Cr.P.C. as under :-

"Section 3. Punishments for offences of attrocities.-

(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

Section 73. Warrant may be directed to any person.-

(1) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class may direct a
warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction for the arrest of any escaped convict,
proclaimed offender or of any person who is accused of a non- bailable offence and is evading
arrest."

It is settled law that if the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the
complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the applicant to face the
criminal trial under the SC/ST Act would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.
In para 6 of the judgment in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others
reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 446, the Apex Court has observed that:- -

"In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that
on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic
ingredients of Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-
accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was
intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public
view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member
of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent
to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence
are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the
appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of
process of law."

6. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot
be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is
to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of
Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of
Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.
Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that the names
of applicants mentioned at the top of the application carries surname Sharma, which means
Brahims by caste, which is undisputedly not a scheduled caste. There is no whisper in the
application or affidavit given in support of application, that applicants are not members of upper
caste rather are members of scheduled caste and without belonging to Brahmin caste, use Sharma
as their surname, so there appears no need for any specific allegation regarding the accusedapplicants being not a member of scheduled caste in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
7 All. Satendra Kumar & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
649
while the names of applicant-accused have been mentioned as Satendra Sharma and Aniruddha
Sharma. In view of the facts of this case, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (supra), has no application.

8. In view of the facts, the disputed defence of the accused-applicant cannot be considered
at this stage and in this application, it may not be decided that whether applicants made false
complaints against opposite party no.2, in order to counter blast the complaints of village people or
the F.I.R. has been lodged as a matter of counter blast.

9. In view of the discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the applicants
have failed to show any sufficient ground for exercise of inherent powers by this Court so as to
prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and there is no
sufficient ground for quashing the charge sheet, the cognizance order dated 18.2.2003 or the
proceedings of criminal case no.378 of 2003 and the prayer in this respect is refused.

10. However, I find force in the contention made by applicants in respect of illegality in the
order issuing non bailable warrants on the very first day of taking cognizance, without issuing
summons and without the applicants having any knowledge of the proceedings. Section 73 of
Cr.P.C. specifically provides that the Magistrate, may direct a warrant for arrest of any of escaped
convict, proclaimed offender or of any other person, who is accused of a non-bailable offence and
is evading arrest. There is nothing on record to show that summons were ever issued against the
applicants since taking of cognizance on 18.2.2003 and they were evading their appearance before
the court concerned. In view of the provisions, the subsequent order dated 18.2.2003, issuing nonbailable warrants fixing 27.3.2003 for appearance and repeating the same order on 27.3.2003 fixing
12.5.2003 and also issuing process under section 82 Cr.P.C., are wrong and illegal and if allowed,
to stand may cause injustice to the applicants and the order issuing non-bailable warrants and
process under section 482 Cr.P.C. are nothing, but abuse of process of court and are liable to be
quashed.

11. Considering the totality of facts, I find that only the order dated 18.2.2003 to the extent
of issuing non-bailable warrants and order dated 27.3.2003, issuing non bailable warrants and
process under section 82 Cr.P.C., are liable to be quashed and the application under section 482
Cr.P.C., is liable to be allowed partly to above extent and is liable to be rejected partly, for the
prayer for quashing the cognizance order dated 18.2.2003 or for quashing the proceedings in
criminal case no.378 of 2003 (State Vs. Satendra and others), under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Jani, District Meerut pending before Special Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Meerut.

12. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of accordingly with the observation that if
the applicants appear before the Magistrate/Special Judge concerned and move applications for
bail, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 3265 Of 2013

Bablu Saini @ Dinesh ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellant:
Sri Sushil Shukla

Counsel for Respondent:
Government Advocate

Rape -- Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. -- Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix -- Sterling Witness -- Standard
of Proof -- Minor girl aged about 9 years allegedly raped by neighbour in midnight -- neither the FIR nor the
examination-in-chief of PW-1 (mother/informant) contained any allegation of rape -- I.O. categorically stated
that neither informant nor victim disclosed anything about rape during interrogation under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
-- victim made statement about rape for the first time in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded after one
month -- statement of victim during trial further improved with new embellishments not found in earlier
statements -- medical evidence did not support prosecution story as no injury or spermatozoa found on body
of victim -- doctor found victim habitual to sexual intercourse -- defence witnesses being independent
neighbours not found to have any reason to shield accused -- Held: in rape cases the solitary testimony of the
prosecutrix may be sufficient to convict an accused but the quality of such testimony must be of 'sterling
quality' which is absolutely trustworthy, unassailable, unblemished and consistent right from the initial
statement to the statement before Court -- where the prosecution story is full of embellishments,
discrepancies, contradictions and improvements and is not corroborated by medical evidence, the prosecution
cannot be said to have proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt -- conviction not sustainable. (Paras 7-14)

Rape -- Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. -- FIR -- Absence of Allegation of Rape -- Effect -- Held: the FIR is
the earliest and most natural document recording the first version of the complainant about the occurrence --
where neither the FIR nor the examination-in-chief of the informant/mother contains any allegation of actual
commission of rape and the I.O. has also confirmed absence of any such disclosure during investigation, the
subsequent introduction of rape in Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and trial testimony constitutes a material
improvement fatal to the prosecution story -- such improvements erode the credibility of prosecution
witnesses and the court should not act on such embellished testimony. (Paras 8-10)

Evidence -- Defence Witnesses -- Weight -- Independent Neighbours -- Held: defence witnesses who
are independent neighbours of both the informant and the accused and who have no reason to shield the
accused from a grave allegation of rape of a minor are entitled to weight -- their testimony cannot be brushed
aside merely because they are defence witnesses -- their categorical denial that any incident took place
combined with their statements about the informant's character present an alternative version supported by