# Smt. Sangeeta Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 1184
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 6864 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sangeeta-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50750
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 482---Applicant assailed the
impugned orders by which, the charges were
framed against the applicant under sections 323
& 506 of I.P.C. and Section 10 of the POCSO
Act--- Under section 35(2) of the Act, there is a
provision that the Special Court dealing with the
matters of the offences under the POCSO Act,
shall complete the trial, as far as possible,
within a period of one year, from the date of
taking
cognizance
of
the
offence---
The
compliance of the provision of Section 207 of
the Cr.P.C. is done by the trial court and
thereafter, the matter was posted for after
lunch session, wherein the applicant alongwith
her counsel appeared and the counsel for the
applicant was heard--- Neither any application
for adjournment of the case nor any objection
9 All. Smt. Sangeeta Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1185
was filed, regarding grant of further time and
the applicant along with her counsel appeared
before the trial court and opted for arguments
on framing of charges--- To frame the charges,
reasons are not required to be recorded, but, as
soon as the court decides to discharge an
accused, it is incumbent upon the trial court to
record the reasons in writing. (Para 30, 32 &
34)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
procedure provided there-under is summary
in nature and is purely a civil remedy with
no criminality attached. On the other hand,
any act which constitutes a "mischief"
within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the
PDPP Act, wherein the definition of the
word "mischief" has been assigned the
same meaning as in Section 425 of Penal
Code, and would relate to any act which
causes destruction of any property, or any
change in any property or in the situation
thereof as destroys or diminishes its value
or utility, or affects it injuriously, and the
property is a "public property" as described
under Section 2(b) of the PDPP Act, the
same would constitute a criminal offence
under Section 3 and would be visited by
penal consequences, namely, imprisonment
and fine.

32. The provisions under the Revenue
Code, the Act, 2020 and the PDPP Act
would, therefore be seen to operate in
different fields with there being no bar in
respect of the institution of proceedings
under the aforesaid enactments separately
or simultaneously in respect of matters
covered thereunder.

33. The criminal proceedings, which
have been initiated in the present case
pursuant
to
FIR
lodged
under
the
provisions of the PDPP Act, thus cannot be
held to be vitiated for the reason that in
respect of the allegations relating to
encroachment/damage to Gaon Sabha land,
only proceedings for eviction and recovery
of damages can be initiated under the
provisions of the Revenue Code and no
criminal proceedings for causing damage or
destruction of public property can be
initiated under the PDPP Act.

34. No other ground was urged,
therefore, no case is made out for invoking
the inherent power of the Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C..

35. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for
the prayer made is liable to be dismissed.

36. Hence, the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 11.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 6864 of 2023

Smt. Sangeeta Shukla ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Nadeem Murtaza, Amitav Singh, Umang
Agarwal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 482---Applicant assailed the
impugned orders by which, the charges were
framed against the applicant under sections 323
& 506 of I.P.C. and Section 10 of the POCSO
Act--- Under section 35(2) of the Act, there is a
provision that the Special Court dealing with the
matters of the offences under the POCSO Act,
shall complete the trial, as far as possible,
within a period of one year, from the date of
taking
cognizance
of
the
offence---
The
compliance of the provision of Section 207 of
the Cr.P.C. is done by the trial court and
thereafter, the matter was posted for after
lunch session, wherein the applicant alongwith
her counsel appeared and the counsel for the
applicant was heard--- Neither any application
for adjournment of the case nor any objection
9 All. Smt. Sangeeta Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1185
was filed, regarding grant of further time and
the applicant along with her counsel appeared
before the trial court and opted for arguments
on framing of charges--- To frame the charges,
reasons are not required to be recorded, but, as
soon as the court decides to discharge an
accused, it is incumbent upon the trial court to
record the reasons in writing. (Para 30, 32 &
34)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. (1979) 3 SCC 4, U.O.I.Vs Prafulla Kumar
Samal

2. (2012)9 SCC 460, Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh
Chander

3. 2021 SCC Online SC 367, Sanjay Kumar Rai
Vs St. of U.P.& anr.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Sri
Amitav Singh, Sri Umang Agarwal, learned
counsels for the applicant, Sri Nirmal
Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the
State and Sri Janardan Dixit, learned
counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3.

2. By means of instant application, the
applicant has assailed the impugned orders
dated 26-06-2023, annexed as annexures
No. 1 & 2 to the application, passed by the
learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court
No. 1, Lucknow, by which, the charges
were framed against the applicant under
sections 323 & 506 of I.P.C. and Section 10
of the POCSO Act, in Sessions Trial No.
1991 of 2023 namely 'The State of U.P.
Versus Sangeeta Shukla', arising out of
first information report no. 15 of 2022,
Police Station-Cantt., District-Lucknow.
Further
has
assailed
the
chargesheet
submitted in first information report no. 15
of 2022, which is annexed as Annexure No.
3 with the paper book as well as the
summoning order dated 24-08-2022.

3. The factual matrix of the case is
that the applicant and her husband namely
Lt.
Colonel,
Shiv
Narain
Shukla,(hereinafter referred as opposite
party no.3), were known to each other since
before their marriage and the marriage was
solemnized on 23-03-2006 at Pathankot.
Soon after their marriage, the applicant and
her husband started living at Pathankot in
army camp and thereafter two daughters,
one aged about 14 years and her younger
sister aged about 13 years, were born out of
their wedlock on 13-01-2008 and on 12-092009 respectively. After the marriage, the
husband of the applicant was posted at
different places and when he was posted at
Pune, in-laws of the applicant visited over
there and started humiliating the applicant
while taunting that the applicant is failed to
give birth to a male child and she was also
beaten by them.

4. He added that on the instigation of
in-laws, the husband of the applicant had
also become hostile and he usually beat the
applicant and also started assassinating her
character
and
when
this
became
unbearable, the applicant made a complaint
to the nearest police station at Barabanki
and narrated the entire incident and both
were called upon, wherein, the husband of
the applicant apologized before the police
officials and assured that he will mend his
ways. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 3
was posted at IIT Bombay for pursuing his
M.Tech Course, but, the husband of the
applicant refused to take the applicant and
her minor children and thus, the applicant
took a flat on rent at Ansal API, Lucknow
and stayed there with her minor daughters.
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Further a flat was purchased in the joint
names of the applicant and her husband,
wherein; most of the amount was paid by
the applicant and the E.M.I's. against the
loan amount has been paid by her.

5. Further argued that in the year
2017, the husband of the applicant took
signatures of the applicant on the blank
paper with ill motive and in the year 2019,
misusing those papers, he succeeded to get
decree of divorce and he started torturing
minor daughters and instigated them
against their own mother. The applicant
narrated her plight to the senior officials
before
the
Army
Wives
Welfare
Association. He added that in the month of
April,2021, the opposite party no. 3 i.e. the
husband of the applicant, took away the
children from the school and pressurized
the applicant to resign from school.
Thereafter,
the
children
again
got
admissions in the month of October, 2021,
in the A.P.S., Bhatinda on the several
request of the applicant.

6. It has also been said that on 21-122021, the husband of the applicant tried to
kill her by pressing a quilt over her mouth
and tried to smother her. On 25-12-2021,
the applicant gave an application at one
Staff Centre/Asha Jyoti Kendra, Lucknow
and to the Regional President, Army Wives
Welfare Association, narrating her plight
and the immense physical and mental
harassment caused by her husband, but, due
to the influence of her husband, the
applicant was denied any maintenance from
AWWA .

7. He contended that being puzzled
and harassed by the opposite party no. 3,
the applicant lodged the first information
report on 27-12-2021, which was registered
as First Information Report No. 186 of
2021, at Police Station-Cantt., DistrictLucknow under sections 498-A,323,504 &
506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, thereby stating that she is
being mentally tortured and dowry is also
being
demanded.
Thereafter,
the
investigation was done and the chargesheet
was filed against the opposite party no. 3.

8. Adding his arguments, he submits
that on application dated 25-12-2021, the
officials of One Staff Centre went to the
matrimonial
home
of
the
applicant;
wherein, they were told by the daughters of
the applicant that they want their mother to
be back at home. Thereafter, on 29-122021, an application was given by the
husband of the applicant for counselling of
his daughters and for production of his
daughters before the Bal Kalyan Samiti,
Lucknow.
On
29-12-2021,
after
counselling of the daughters, a report was
submitted, which reveals that there is no
allegation of sexual assault or any sort of
bad touching as is alleged.

9. It is argued that unbelievable story
has been narrated in the first information
report by the father of the alleged
prosecutrix and thereafter, the Investigating
Officer without collecting the material
evidences, filed the chargesheet against the
present applicant, who is admittedly the
mother of the opposite party no. 2. He
submits
that
under
the
duress,
the
statements of the daughter were got
recorded under section 161 and thereafter,
under section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the trial
court.

10. Next submission is that the
learned trial court, without application of
judicial mind, has taken cognizance on the
chargesheet and issued the summons
against the applicant and thereafter, the
9 All. Smt. Sangeeta Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1187
copy of the case diary was provided on 2606-2023 in pre lunch session, while
complying with the mandate of the
provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and
thereafter, in the post lunch session, learned
trial court framed the charges against the
applicant. He also added that an application
under section 207 of Cr.P.C. was moved by
the applicant through her counsel on 26-062023 and it is apparent from the order dated
26-06-2023 of the pre lunch session that the
counsel for the applicant has noted on the
ordersheet itself, that the copy of the
requisite prosecution record is not served
either to the applicant or her counsel. He
submits that the documents were only
served to the applicant, on 07-07-2023,
whereas the impugned order for framing of
charges upon the applicant was passed on
26-06-2023 itself.

11. Further urged that even assuming
the fact that the copies of the documents
were handed over to the applicant on 2606-2023, even then, no reasonable period
of time has been given to the applicant to
go through the prosecution record/case
diary or to move a discharge application. It
has been submitted that right to fair trial
has been held to be a fundamental right as
guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, which has been
discussed in case of Hussainara Khatoon &
Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar,
reported in 1979 AIR 1369 and the
procedure prescribed by law so far as the
trial is concerned, is provided in the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 i.e. the trial
to be conducted by the Court of Sessions,
as laid down in Chapter XVIII starting
from sections 225 to sections 237 whereas
Sections 227 & 228 of Cr.P.C. provide the
provision of discharge and framing of
charges, respectively. He added that the
discharge is a valuable right of an accused
and the trial starts after the charges are
framed i.e. the subsequent stage of
discharge, but, the trial court in the instant
matter,
has
ignored
the
aforesaid
provisions.

12. In support of his contentions, he
has placed reliance on a case reported in
(1979) 3 SCC 4, Union of India Vs.
Prafulla Kumar Samal and has referred
paragraphs 4,7 & 10 of the abovesaid
Judgment, which are reproduced as under :-

"4. We might state, to begin with,
that so far as the present case (offences
committed
under
the
Prevention
of
Corruption Act) is concerned it is regulated
by the procedure laid down by the Criminal
Law Amendment Act under which the
police has to submit a charge-sheet directly
to the Special Judge and the question of
commitment to the Court of Session does
not arise, but the Sessions Judge has
nevertheless to follow the procedure
prescribed for trial of sessions cases and
the
consideration
governing
the
interpretation, of Section 227 of the Code
apply
mutatis
mutandis
to
these
proceedings after the charge-sheet is
submitted before the Special Judge.

7. Section 227 of the Code runs thus:

"If, upon consideration of the
record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused, he
shall discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing."

The words "not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused"
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clearly show that the Judge is not a mere
post office to frame the charge at the behest
of the prosecution, but has to exercise his
judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial
has been made out by the prosecution. In
assessing this fact, it is not necessary for
the court to enter into the pros and cons of
the matter or into a weighing and
balancing of evidence and probabilities
which is really his function after the trial
starts. At the stage of Section 227, the
Judge has merely to sift the evidence in
order to find out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused. The sufficiency of ground
would take within its fold the nature of the
evidence recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the court which
ex facie disclose that there are suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to
frame a charge against him.

10.Thus, on a consideration of
the authorities mentioned above, the
following principles emerge:

(1)
That
the
Judge
while
considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 of the Code has
the undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding
out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out.

(2) Where the materials placed
before the Court disclose grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been
properly explained the Court will be fully
justified
in
framing
a
charge
and
proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima
facie case would naturally depend upon the
facts of each case and it is difficult to lay
down a rule of universal application. By
and large however if two views are equally
possible and the Judge is satisfied that the
evidence produced before him while giving
rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will be
fully within his right to discharge the
accused.

(4)
That
in
exercising
his
jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code
the Judge which under the present Code is
a senior and experienced court cannot act
merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of
the prosecution, but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total
effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the Court, any basic
infirmities appearing in the case and so on.
This however does not mean that the Judge
should make a roving enquiry into the pros
and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting a trial."

13. Referring the aforesaid, he
submits that after due consideration, certain
guidelines were framed which says that the
court while exercising it's jurisdiction
under section 227 of the Code, cannot
merely act as post office or a mouthpiece of
prosecution, but, has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case and the total effect
of the evidence, but, it is not extended to
touch the periphery of the trial. He added
that so far as the present case is concerned,
the trial court has overlooked the ratio of
the Judgment in the case of Union of India
Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal(Supra) and
straightaway proceeded for framing of the
charges.

14. While further placing reliance on
the case reported in (2012)9 SCC 460,
Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, he
submits that the framing of charges is an
9 All. Smt. Sangeeta Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1189
exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in
terms of the Section 228 of the Code,
unless the accused is discharged under
section 227 of the Code and thus, it is
evident that the court is required to
consider the record of the case and the
documents
submitted
therewith
and
therefore, it emerges that reasonable
opportunity of hearing is essential.

15. Again, reliance has been placed
on the Judgment reported in 2021 SCC
Online SC 367, Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, and
has referred paragraph no. 19 of the
judgment, which is reproduced as follows :-

"19.The
High
Court
has
committed jurisdictional error by not
entertaining the revision petition on merits
and overlooking the fact that 'discharge' is
a valuable right provided to the accused. In
line with the fact that the High Court and
the court below have not examined the
fairness of criminal investigation in this
case and other related aspects concerning
improvement of witness statements, it is
necessary for the High Court to reconsider
the entire matter and decide the revision
petition afresh. Accordingly, we set aside
the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 and
remand the case back to the High Court for
its reconsideration in accordance with
law."

16. Referring the aforesaid, he
submits that Hon'ble Apex Court has
reiterated that 'discharge is a valuable right
provided to the accused' and therefore,
fairness of criminal investigation as well as
other related aspects, must be examined at
the level of the discharge.

17. Concluding his arguments, he
submits that the applicant is a highly
educated lady, who completed her B.Sc. in
the year 2003, and had also obtained two
B.Ed degrees in the year 2008 & 2018 and
Diploma Course of PGDVA in Human
Rights
Resource
Management
from
Symbiosis School and also worked as
teacher for some time, but, the opposite
party no. 3 being annoyed and inimical has
hatched the applicant in a criminal
conspiracy and as a result whereof, the
applicant is facing criminal proceedings
and being harassed.

18. Further submitted that the
reasonable opportunity of hearing as well
as time has not been accorded by the trial
court on discharge and the order dated 2606-2023 has been passed in post lunch
session by the trial court, whereby charges
have been framed under sections 323 &
506 of I.P.C. and Section 10 of the
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter referred to
as Act,2012). Therefore, submission is that
the impugned orders dated 26-06-2023
passed in the pre lunch session and post
lunch session, by which the charges have
been framed, may be set aside and the
learned trial court may be directed to hear
the applicant on discharge and further the
consequential proceedings, may also be set
aside.

19. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for the opposite nos. 2 & 3 has
vehemently opposed the contentions of the
learned counsel for the applicant and
submits that the prosecutrix is the minor
daughter of the applicant and the minor
daughter,
who
is
innocent,
in
her
statements recorded under sections 161 &
164 Cr.P.C., has stated that she has been
preyed of bad touch and sexual harassment
by her mother and thus, she has fully
supported the version of the prosecution.
1190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The victim was also produced before the
Child
Welfare
Committee,
Lucknow,wherein she also reiterated her
statement. He added that the Investigating
Officer thoroughly investigated the matter
and after recording the statements of the
victim as well as other witnesses and
collecting the cogent evidences against the
accused, filed the chargesheet and the
Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance
and has issued summons and in case of
avoidance of criminal proceedings by the
applicant, non bailable warrant was also
issued on 10-12-2022, whereafter, the
applicant was arrested and sent to jail.

20. Further contention of learned
counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 is
that on 26-06-2023, an application for
recall of the order of non bailable warrant
was submitted by the applicant and
thereafter, he also moved a discharge
application, whereafter the same was
dismissed and the charges were framed
against the applicant under sections 323 &
506 of I.P.C. and Section 10 of the POCSO
Act.
Thereafter,
on
07-07-2023,
the
Examination-in-Chief of the prosecutrix
has been completed and the next date was
fixed on 19-07-2023 for recording the cross
examination of the prosecutrix. He added
that from perusal of the pre lunch session
order dated 26-06-2023, it reveals that there
is compliance of provision of Section 207
of Cr.P.C. as the prosecution documents
have been provided to the applicant and
thereafter, the matter was posted after lunch
session, wherein the applicant alongwith
her counsel appeared before the court
concerned and the learned counsel for the
applicant was heard alongwith the Public
Prosecutor, which is apparent from the
impugned order. He added that there is no
iota of evidence that the applicant or her
counsel
has
ever,
requested
for
adjournment of the case or for providing
further opportunity of hearing.

21. A.G.A. appearing for the State
submits that so far as the endorsement
made on the pre lunch session, on the order
dated 26-06-2023, that 'copyप्राप्त नही िराई', is
concerned, the same is being belied as per
the appearance of the counsel for the
applicant in the post lunch session, which is
evident
in
the
order
dated
26-062023,wherein, the learned counsel for the
applicant appeared and has argued the case.

22. Fortifying his arguments, he
submits that looking into charges framed
against the applicant under the POCSO
Act, and the procedure prescribed under
section 35 (2) of the Act,2012, it is
apparent that Special Court is mandated
that the trial shall be completed as far as
possible, within period of one year from the
date of taking cognizance of the offence.
For ready reference, Section 35 of the
Act,2012, is reproduced hereinunder :-

"35. Period for recording of
evidence of child and disposal of case-(1)
The evidence of he child shall be recorded
within a period of thirty days of the Special
Court taking cognizance of the offence and
reasons for delay, if any, shall be recorded
by the Special Court.

(2) The Special Court shall
complete the trial, as far as possible, within
a period of one year from the date of taking
cognizance of the offence."

23. He argued that it is apparent from
the conduct of the applicant that after
issuance of the summons, accused persons
did not put their appearance before the non
bailable warrants were issued against them
and thereafter, the applicant was arrested
9 All. Smt. Sangeeta Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1191
on 12-12-2022 and was sent to jail. This
clearly shows that the applicant is adopting
dilly dallying tactics, which infact, is not
permitted as per the intent of legislature,
which is evident from the provision of
Section 35 (2) of the Act,2012, and
therefore,
following
the
aforesaid
provisions, the trial court has rightly
proceeded in the matter and is trying to
conclude the trial, at the earliest.

24. Adding his arguments, he submits
that there is no unlawfulness or perversity
in the order dated 26-06-2023 as the
applicant has failed to establish her case
that she was not afforded the reasonable
period of time so as to be heard on
discharge, contrary to it, learned counsel
for the applicant was present and argued
the matter and thereafter, the charges were
framed. But, once, the applicant failed to be
successful in delaying the matter, she raised
the plea, which could not be substantiated
either by the counsel for the applicant or
from the records submitted with the paper
book. Therefore, the contention is that the
instant application has no merit and the
same may be dismissed.

25. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and after perusal of material
placed on record, it transpires that the first
information report was lodged on 10-022022, under sections 323,354, 506,120-B of
I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act,
2012 at Police Station-Cantt., DistrictLucknow, on the orders of U.P. State
Commission for Protection of Children's
Rights and thereafter, the statement of the
prosecutrix was recorded under section 161
of Cr.P.C. on 14-02-2022 and on 15-032022, the statement of the prosecutrix was
recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and
in both the statements, the prosecturix has
fully
supported
the
version
of
the
prosecution. The chargesheet was filed by
the Investigating Officer on 19-08-2022,
under sections 323 & 506 of I.P.C. and
section 9/10 of the POCSO Act, and
thereafter, on 24-08-2022, the trial court
took
cognizance
and
summoned
the
accused persons for facing trial and in case
of non appearance, the non bailable warrant
was issued, wherein the applicant was
arrested and sent to jail. For faster disposal
of the matter, the Special POCSO Court
separated the file of the applicant from the
other co-accused persons on 31-05-2023.

26. It is apparent that on 26-06-2023,
in the pre-lunch session, the following
order was passed :-

कदनांि-26.06.2023 पत्रावली पेश हुई। पुिार
िराई गयी। पुिार पर अकियुक्ता संगीता शुक्ला मय कवद्वान
अकधवक्ता उपकस्र्त। अकियुक्ता संगीता शुक्ला िे कवरुद्ध पूवग में जारी
गैर जमानतीय वारंि िो कनरस्त िरने िे कलए प्रार्गनापत्र मय
शपर्पत्र व आधार िाडग तर्ा आई.डी. िी छाया प्रकत दाकखल िी
गयी तर्ा िहा गया कि प्राकर्गनी/अकियुक्ता गुड़गांव में रहती है। इस
कलए वह कनयत कतकर् पर उपकस्र्त नहीं हो पाई। प्राकर्गनी/अकियुक्ता
संगीता शुक्ला िो न्याकयि अकिरिा में कलया जाये।

कवद्वान अकियोजन अकधिारी द्वारा मौकखि रूप से
कवरोध किया गया।

सुना तर्ा पत्रावली िा अवलोिन किया।

पत्रावली िे अवलोिन से स्पष्ट है कि प्रस्तुत मामले
में आवश्यि अकियोजन प्रपत्रों िी प्रकत अकियुक्ता वा उसिे
अकधवक्ता िो प्राप्त नहीं िरायी गयी है। िायागलय/रीकडर/मुंसररम िो
कनदेकशत किया जाता है कि वह तत्िाल अकियुक्ता व उनिे
अकधवक्ता िो आवश्यि अकियोजन प्रपत्रों िी प्रकत उपलब्ध िरायें।
पत्रावली लंच बाद पेश हो।

कदनांि-26.06.2023

(आशुतोष कुमार स िंह)

अपर कजला एवं सत्र
न्यायाधीश/कवशेष न्यायाधीश,
पॉक्सो एक्ि, िोिग नं०- 1, लखनऊ।
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27. From perusal of the order
abovesaid, it transpires that in case of
the non appearance of the applicant
before the trial court, the non bailable
warrant
was
issued,
wherein
an
application was moved by the applicant
for recall of the order of issuance of non
bailable warrant and she was heard, after
taking her in judicial custody and
thereafter, the compliance of provisions
of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., has been
done and the matter was directed to be
posted after lunch session.

28. Further; in the post lunch session,
the following order was passed :-

"26-06-2023

पत्रावली प्रस्तुत हुई। पुिार पर अकियुक्ता संगीता
शुक्ला मय कवद्वान अकधवक्ता उपकस्र्त। अकियुक्ता िे कवद्वान
अकधवक्ता व कवद्वान कवशेष लोि अकियोजि उपकस्र्त।

अकियुक्ता िी ओर से िर्न किया गया कि उसिे
कवरुद्ध धारा- 323, 506 िा०दं०सं० व धारा-9/10 पॉक्सो एक्ि
िा आरोप नहीं बनता है। उसे मामले से उन्मोकचत किया जाए।

कवद्वान कवशेष लोि अकियोजि द्वारा िर्न किया
गया है कि पत्रावली पर मौजूद साक्ष्यों िे आधार पर अकियुक्त िे
कवरुद्ध आरोप कवरकचत किये जाने िे आधार पयागप्त हैं।

मैंने आरोप िे कबन्दु पर कवद्वान कवशेष लोि
अकियोजि व अकियुक्त िे कवद्वान अकधवक्ता िो सुना एवं पत्रावली
िा परीशीलन किया।

पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य िा अवलोिन
िरने तर्ा अकियुक्ता िे कवदान अकधवक्ता एवं कवद्वान कवशेष लोि
अकियोजि िो सुनने िे उपरान्त मेरा यह मत है कि अकियुक्ता िे
कवरुद्ध धारा-323, 506िा०दं०सं० व धारा-9/10 पॉक्सो एक्ि
िे अन्तगगत आरोप कवरकचत किये जाने हेतु पयागप्त आधार हैं।

अतः अकियुक्ता संगीता शुक्ला िे कवरुद्ध धारा-
323, 506 िा०दं०सं० व धारा-9/10 पॉक्सो एक्ि िे अन्तगगत
आरोप कवरकचत किया जाता है।

पत्रावली वास्ते साक्ष्य कदनांि-07-07-2023 िो
पेश हो। गवाहान तलब हों।

कदनांि-26.06.2023

(आशुतोष कुमार स िंह)

अपर कजला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश/कवशेष न्यायाधीश,

पॉक्सो एक्ि, िोिग नं०- 1, लखनऊ।

29.

While
going
through
the
abovesaid order, it emerges that the present
applicant alongwith her counsel, appeared
before the trial court in the post lunch
session and the counsel for the applicant
was heard. The applicant as well as the
counsel for the applicant, neither moved
any application for adjournment of the case
nor made any objection while hearing the
matter for providing further opportunity of
hearing.

30. This court is aware of the fact that
the charges have been framed against the
present applicant under the provisions of
POCSO Act, wherein under section 35(2)
of the Act, there is a provision that the
Special Court dealing with the matters of
the offences under the POCSO Act, shall
complete the trial, as far as possible, within
a period of one year, from the date of
taking cognizance of the offence and
therefore,
the
trial
court
very
well
proceeded in the matter, following the
mandate abovesaid.

31. It is also evident that the applicant
was avoiding her appearance before the
trial court after issuance of the summons in
the month of August, 2022, uptill she was
arrested in the month of December, 2022
and the matter could very hardly put into
motion by the trial court and the applicant
appeared, after issuance of the non bailable
warrant, which itself is overt that the
present applicant is trying to delay the
9 All. Smt. Sangeeta Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1193
matter, so that she could escape from the
clutches of the law.

32. When this court examines the
crux of the matter, as to whether the proper
opportunity was accorded to the present
applicant or not; it emerges from the order
dated 26-06-2023 (pre lunch session) that
the compliance of the provision of Section
207 of the Cr.P.C. is done by the trial court
and thereafter, the matter was posted for
after lunch session, wherein the present
applicant alongwith her counsel appeared
and the counsel for the applicant was heard,
which is apparent from the order itself. It
also reveals that neither any application for
adjournment of the case nor any objection
was filed, regarding grant of further time
and the applicant alongwith her counsel
appeared before the trial court and opted
for arguments on framing of charges.

33. It is trite law that discharge is a
valuable right of an accused and that cannot
be circumvented, but, at the same time,
there can be no straight jacket formula for
examining that opportunity of discharge is
infact been accorded or not and this can be
looked
into
as
per
it's
facts
and
circumstances, in each and every case.

34. Law is also settled that once the
court comes to the conclusion to frame the
charges, reasons are not required to be
recorded, but, as soon as the court decides
to discharge an accused, it is incumbent
upon the trial court to record the reasons in
writing.

35. So far as the present case is
concerned,
it
is
apparent
from
the
impugned order itself, that the provisions of
the Code including the provisions of
Section 207 of Cr.P.C. have very well been
complied with and it is not the case of the
present applicant that even after an
application for granting further time, the
court has proceeded to frame the charges,
contrary to it, the present applicant
alongwith her counsel was present before
the trial court and counsel for the applicant
was properly heard and therefore, there
seems to be no merit in the contentions of
learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant was not afforded an opportunity
to be heard on discharge.

36. This court has also prima-facie
noticed that the endorsement, which has
been shown on the order dated 26-06-2023,
at pre lunch session, is not genuine and that
has perhaps subsequently, been made as
after having at a glance, on the order dated
26-06-2023, it is evident that the applicant
and her counsel appeared before the trial
court in the post lunch session. Therefore,
no prejudice is caused to the applicant as
such.

37. In view of aforesaid submissions
and discussions, this court finds no merit in
the instant application, consequently, the
same is hereby dismissed.

38. It is made clear that the
observations made as above, would have no
bearing on the merits of the trial.
----------