Ravindra Singh - (1.) HEARD Sri Viresh Mishra, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Mishra and Sri S. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri B. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 Lal Ji Yadav.
(2.) THIS application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet of Case Crime No. 448 of 2008, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., P. S. Campierganj, district Gorakhpur pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 17, Gorakhpur vide Criminal Case No. 2288 of 2008. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged against applicant, co-accused Ram Milan Tripathi, co-accused Vidyamani Tripathi and co-accused Kanik Lal by O.P. No. 2 Lal Ji Yadav on 6.5.2008 at 12.25 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 29.4.2008. It is alleged that the daughter of the first informant namely Preeti aged about 13 years has been enticed away by the co-accused Ram Milan Tripathi with the connivance of the applicant and other co-accused persons. The co-accused Ram Milan Tripathi was a man of bad character. In F.I.R. itself the specific allegation of kidnapping the girl has been made against Ram Milan Tripathi. No active role of kidnapping has been attributed to the applicant. The applicant is a old man aged about 60 years, he is a teacher and he is having no concern with the family of O.P. No. 2 because the applicant is resident of District Mahrajganj and O.P. No. 2 is resident of District Gorakhpur. The eldest daughter of the applicant was married with co-accused Ram Milan Tripathi, who had expired in the year 1995, four other daughters of the applicant are also married and one daughter namely Neetu aged about 18 years is unmarried. The eldest daughter of the applicant who has died in the year 1995 was mother of two children including a daughter who is student of class Xth and her son is student of Class VIII. He is looking after the children of her eldest daughter Smt. Urmila who has expired. The applicant is having no concern with the alleged incident. The F.I.R. is delayed by nine days without having any plausible explanation. The applicant was having no cordial relation with co-accused Ram Milan Tripathi who has allegedly kidnapped the girl. The allegation made by O.P. No. 2 against the applicant is vague in nature, is not corroborated by any other evidence, but without doing the fair investigation and collecting the cogent evidence against the applicant, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet in a routine manner, on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance in a mechanical manner on 5.7.2008. It is further contended that even on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Officer prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant. Considering the allegation made in F.I.R. and other circumstances of the case, Division Bench of this Court has stayed the arrest of the applicant during investigation of this case in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9747 of 2008 vide order dated 23.6.2008. In such circumstances the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2288 of 2008 including the charge-sheet of Crime No. 448 of 2008 under Sections 363 and 366, I.P.C. pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 17, Gorakhpur may be quashed.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 that in the present case minor girl has been kidnapped. The applicant is father-in-law of the main accused Ram Milan Tripathi, it has been specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. that the minor girl has been kidnapped by co-accused Ram Milan Tripathi in connivance with the applicant and other co-accused persons. The kidnapped girl namely Preeti aged about 13 years has not been recovered till today. During investigation the statement of O.P. No. 2 Lal Ji Yadav was recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. who supported the F.I.R. version by alleging that the applicant and three other co-accused persons has enticed away his daughter for the purpose of performing the marriage. The other witnesses namely Ram Velas son of Mangroo has also been interrogated under Section 161, Cr. P.C. who categorically stated that Km. Preeti Yadav was student of Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir, Machhaligaon, he saw her in the company of the applicant and other co-accused persons. The statement of witness Puranmasi son of Sri Mangroo has also been recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. who has supported the prosecution version by alleging that he had seen the applicant and other co-accused persons having the conversation with Km. Preeti Yadav, thereafter they have taken away the girl. The statements of brother and mother of Km. Preeti have been recorded who supported the prosecution version. During investigation INvestigating Officer has collected the cogent evidence showing the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. The INvestigating Officer has not committed any error in submitting the charge-sheet. Learned Magistrate concerned has also not committed any error in taking the cognizance against the applicant and other co-accused persons on 5.7.2008. IN the present case, minor girl has been kidnapped, who has not been recovered so far, the gravity of the offence is too much. The present application filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the proceedings is devoid of merits, the same may be dismissed. Considering the submissions, made of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the opposite party and from the perusal of the record it appears that the applicant is named in the F.I.R., the specific allegation has been made against the applicant by the first informant O.P. No. 2 Lal Ji Yadav and other witnesses namely Ram Velas, Puranmasi, Umesh Yadav and wife of O.P. No. 2. In the present case, a minor girl aged about 13 years has been kidnapped who has not been recovered. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet dated 3.7.2008 on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance on 5.7.2008. The Investigating Officer has not committed any error in submitting the charge-sheet because sufficient material has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant disclosing his participation in the commission of the alleged offence. The learned Magistrate concerned has also not committed any error in taking the cognizance on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by Investigating Officer because the material collected by the Investigating Officer prima facie discloses the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366, I.P.C. So far as the grounds taken by the applicant in respect of the age of the applicant, his family background, etc. are concerned are not having much relevance for the purpose of quashing the charge-sheet by ignoring the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr. P.C. The present applicant is having no substance, therefore, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2288 of 2008 under Sections 363 and 366, I.P.C. pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 17, P. S. Campier Ganj, District Gorakhpur is refused.;