Rajendra Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Bhikhari

Poonam Srivastava, J.—Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, Sri A.K. Awasthi, learned Counsels appearing for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet submitted in case No. 2414 of 1998 arising out of case crime no, 125 of 1998 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3(i) (xii) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Khutar, District Shahjahanpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Shahjahanpur.

First Information Report has been annexed as annexure no 1. to the affidavit filed in support of the application. Perusal of the F.I.R. shows that no role has been assigned to the present applicant In fact, according to the statement of victim Prema recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she has completely exonerated the present applicant. Copy of the statement has been annexed as annexure No. 7 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is admitted that the applicant was known to her lather since before the occurrence and it was the applicant, who made every efforts to help her. He accompanied the prosecutrix in Tata Sumo vehicle and ensured that she readies her father Not an iota of allegation has been levelled against the present applicant. There are also affidavits filed by father of the victim, witness Bhikhari and prosecutrix Prema herself.

Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit is deposition of the prosecutrix during the trial. She has been declared hostile. The judgment and order dated 6,4.2005 passed in session trial No. 976 of 1999 against the other co-accused has been annexed as annexure No. 2 to the supplementary affidavit. The court has given clear verdict of acquittal in respect of co-accused Ram Sevak u/s 363 I.P.C. 3(i)(xii) SC/ST (P.A.) Act and also in respect of co-accused Suresh, Paragu, Madan Pal under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C. (3)(i)(xii) SC/ST (P.A.) Act. In view of these developments besides other documents, prayer is for quashing the impugned charge sheet.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned A.G.A., to which rejoinder affidavit is also on record but in view of these developments, which can hardly be disputed by the State, it is apparent that continuation of the trial in respect of the present applicant is nothing but flagrant abuse of process of the court. In the case of Narayan Rai v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2004 (1) L.I.C. 508 (All), in similar circumstances, the principle of stare ducisis was applied in view of consideration that no conviction can be procured by any stretch of imagination whatsoever and, therefore, the proceedings were quashed.

In the instant case, taking into consideration statements of the prosecutrix as well as other witnesses and also judgment of the acquittal in respect of main accused, which the court below found to be unbelievable, I come to a conclusion that the proceedings on the basis of impugned charge sheet should be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as subsequent development clearly shows that the is absolutely nil prospect of the case ending in a conviction. It is only wastage of time and a hollow formality especially when the result of the trial is a foregone conclusion. In the circumstances, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of principle of stare decisis. The trial should not be allowed to continue in respect of the present applicant. It is a futile exercise, specially in the light of the evidence of the prosecution and the witnesses and also the judgment of Session Trial No. 976 of 1999. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge sheet submitted against the applicant in ease No. 2414 of 1998 arising out of case crime No. 125 of 1998 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3(i)(xii) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Khutar, District Shahjahanpur is quashed. The application filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.