- (1.) Heard Sri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Charge-sheet dated 18.8.2014, in Criminal Case No.5063/2014 (State vs. Rohit Sharma and others) under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Outpost G.R.P. Anwargang, Kanpur Nagar. Background facts are as under:- An FIR came to be registered on an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C as Case Crime No.6/2014 by O.P. No.2 against the applicants, namely, Rohit Sharma, Mohit Sharma and Mohil Sharma, (all brothers, of whom, applicant no.3/Mohil Sharma claims to be a Combatant Member, posted at No.23, Squadron, Air Force, Suratgarh), alleging misbehaviour and act of obscenity with the wife of O.P. No.2/the informant, who hurled abuses and robbed her of cash, while travelling in a train. After investigation, a charge-sheet against the applicants under Sections 323/354/504/506 IPC was submitted, on which the Magistrate on 6.9.2014 took cognizance of the offences.
(2.) Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as applicant no. 3 / Mohil Sharma was subject to the provisions of The Air Force Act, 1950 (short "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder, the cognizance stands vitiated qua him as it was not preceded by any notice/intimation to his superior authority in terms of Section 124/125 of the Act, Section 475 Cr.P.C and in particular Rule 3 framed thereunder. He relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India vs. Major S.K. Sharma, 1987 AIR(SC) 1878 Som Datt v. Union of India, 1969 AIR(SC) 414 General Officer Commanding Rashtriya Rifles vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2012 6 SCC 228 & Delhi Special Police Establishment, New Delhi vs. Lt. Col. S.K. Loraiya, 1972 AIR(SC) 2548
(3.) Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A after placing reliance on Major S.K. Sharma contended that the stage set forth in Section 475 Cr.P.C r/w Rules 3, 4, 5 of 1978 Rules along with Sections 124/125 of the Act would arise only at a stage when the accused is brought before the Magistrate for the purposes of framing charges/committal for being tried and not prior thereto. He thus submits that no illegality could be attributed to the cognizance.;