# Sonu Maurya v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 22 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2022-08-17 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 3369 of 2022 - **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sonu-maurya-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47707 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015 - Sections 12, 12(1) & 102 - Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act,2012 - Sections 7 & 8 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 376, 354-A, 504 & 506 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 161 & 216:- Validity of order impugned - by which the court below has rejected the application of the applicant in which he requested not to proceed trial unless and until contradictions regarding age of the victim has to be decided first - FIR - informant alleged that, accused applicant misbehaved and by using abusing languages threatened to kill when she went to tube-well for washing clothes - objected - being perusal of material available on record prima facie, court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application in question - held, if such a course to be adopted by the parties, then it will be well nigh impossible for the court to conclude the trial and concept of speedy trial will get jeopardized - application dismissed. (Para - 5, 6) Application (u/s 482) dismissed. (E-11) List of Cases cited: P. Kartikalakshmi Vs Sri Ganesh & anr. (2017 vol. 3 SCC 347. ## Text 22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES this writ application as being devoid of any merits is dismissed, but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. ---------- (2022) 10 ILRA 22 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Application U/S 482 No. 3369 of 2022 Sonu Maurya ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Bairister Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., Sri Dinesh Chandra Yadav, Sri Kshitiswar Nath Yadav Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015 - Sections 12, 12(1) & 102 - Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act,2012 - Sections 7 & 8 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 376, 354-A, 504 & 506 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 161 & 216:- Validity of order impugned - by which the court below has rejected the application of the applicant in which he requested not to proceed trial unless and until contradictions regarding age of the victim has to be decided first - FIR - informant alleged that, accused applicant misbehaved and by using abusing languages threatened to kill when she went to tube-well for washing clothes - objected - being perusal of material available on record prima facie, court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application in question - held, if such a course to be adopted by the parties, then it will be well nigh impossible for the court to conclude the trial and concept of speedy trial will get jeopardized - application dismissed. (Para - 5, 6) Application (u/s 482) dismissed. (E-11) List of Cases cited: P. Kartikalakshmi Vs Sri Ganesh & anr. (2017 vol. 3 SCC 347. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Bairister Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Dinesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State as well as perused the entire records. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court no.2, Varanasi in S.S.T. No.30/2018 (State vs. Sonu Maurya and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.686/2017, under Sections 354A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S.-Phoolpur, DistrictVaranasi, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court no.2, Varanasi. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 14.09.2017 against the applicant under Sections 354A, 504, 506 IPC with the allegations that when the daughter of opposite party no.2 went to tube-well for washing clothes, the applicant misbehaved with her and when the opposite party no.2 went to house of applicant, he, after using abusive language, threatened to kill. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and the charges were framed under Sections 354A, 504, 506 IPC as well 10 All. Sonu Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 23 as section 7/8 of POCSO Act. Subsequently, the court below proceeded with the trial and the victim has been examined as P.W.-1. The chiefexamination of the victim, P.W.-1 has been recorded on 30.11.2021 by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court no.2, Varanasi. During course of examination of the victim, P.W.- 1, the counsel for the accused-applicant found contradictions regarding age of the victim, therefore, an application was filed being Paper No.15Kha, 16Kha and 17Kha on 04.03.2021 requesting the court below to proceed with the trial only after taking evidence regarding the age of the victim and deciding the same. However, the aforesaid application has been rejected vide order dated 30.11.2021 on the ground that the question regarding age of the victim cannot be decided at this stage and the same can be done only after the entire evidences is collected. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in an earlier case, which was registered by the victim in the year 2015 being Case Crime No.345/2015, Under Sections 323, 376 IPC, Police StationPhoolpur, District-Varanasi, the age of the victim as determined by the Doctor was said to be 19 and a half years. In the aforesaid case, the statement of the victim was recorded wherein she stated that she was studying in Class-Xth at Sant Azayab Singh Maharaj Public School, Karikhiyava, Varanasi and also accepted that she was 19 years old. However, in the present case, the educational certificate has been produced in which date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 24.04.2001. Therefore, without deciding the issue regarding age of the victim, the court below cannot proceed with the trial and has rejected the application in a mechanical manner. He further submits that the concerned court below has illegally passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 rejecting the application of the applicant without considering the grievance of the applicant, hence, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that though section 216 Cr.P.C. provides power to the court concerned to alter or add any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, but no party, neither de facto complainant nor the accused or for that matter the prosecution has any vested right to seek any addition or alteration of charge, because it is not provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C. If such a course to be adopted by the parties is allowed, then it will be well nigh impossible for the Criminal Court to conclude its proceedings and the concept of speedy trial will get jeopardized. The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh and Another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 347. Learned AGA further submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 and the concerned court below has rightly considered the application of the applicant and rejected the same. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as material available on record prima-facie, the concerned court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the applicant. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the concerned 24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES court below. Therefore, no interference is required at this stage. 7. In view of the above, the application is, accordingly, dismissed. ---------- (2022) 10 ILRA 24 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. Writ-A No. 4662 of 2022 Rakesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Prathamesh Upadhyay, Sri R.K. Ojha (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava A. Service Law - Forfeiture of Pension - Punishment - U.P. Power Corporation Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020: Regulation 11; Bihar Electricity Act: Section 3(1) - Alternative Remedy - When a right is created by the statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy u/Article 226 of the Constitution. This Rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. (Para 11) In present case, the punishment order has been challenged not only on grounds of violation of Principle of Natural Justice but also on merits by saying that the Inquiry Report on which such punishment order is based is completely nonspeaking and has tried to convince this Court on the merits of the claim of the petitioner that he is in no way responsible for the alleged misconduct which led to the passing of the impugned order. Disputed questions of fact have been tried to be raised in this petition by means of filing affidavits including supplementary affidavit showing that the respondents themselves have acted upon the noting made on the file by the petitioner. This Court in Writ jurisdiction finds itself unable to appreciate disputed questions of fact only on the basis of affidavit. (Para 12, 13) Writ petition dismissed. (E-4) Precedent followed: 1. Smt. Shaheen Badar Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & ors., Special Appeal No. 566 of 2022 (Para 3) 2. M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs The State of Bihar & ors., Civil Appeal No 5728 of 2021 (Para 4) 3. UPPCL Vs Anil Kumar Sharma, Special Appeal Defective No. 646 of 2021, decided on 23.10.2021 (Para 8) 4. N.P. Ponnuswami Vs Returning Officer, 1952 SCR 218 (Para 11) Present petition assails order dated 10.01.2022, passed by Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.) (Oral) 1. Heard Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assited by Sri Prathamesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.