DURGESH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Kripa Shankar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rajendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) It is alleged in the first information report by the informant who is also the prosecutrix in this case that the applicant Durgesh usually tries to outrage modesty of the informant Neha Rawat and does obscene acts and applies pressure on her to marry; or else he will kill her. It is further alleged that the informant does not want to marry the applicant.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that although the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case in the statements under sec. 161 and 164 CrPC, however, it is a clear case of false implication. It is submitted that before lodging of the first information report, the informant's father Ram Prakash Rawat with the help of police of police station Mohanlalganj had raised a frivolous dispute on 01/08/2021 and for applying pressure to marry his daughter with the applicant, for which the applicant was challaned under Ss. 151, 107, 116 CrPC which is mentioned in G.D. No.36 dtd. 01/08/2021 itself. Since the father of the applicant is not willing to marry with the prosecutrix, that is why, the informant's father who is Home Guard in local police is harassing him.