ANJALI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant- Anjali has filed this petition under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of Complaint No.02 of 2023, titled Ruksana Vs. Jasveer and others, under Ss. 376D, 120B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and u/s 66 Information Technology Act, 2000, as well as impugned summoning order dtd. 14/2/2023 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura.

(2.) Briefly, the facts leading to the application are that the complainant, namely, Ruksana w/o Amajad Khan brought a criminal complaint bearing number 02 of 2023, titled Ruksana Vs. Jasveer and others, before the Special Court (POCSO Act), Mathura with the allegations that she is working as maid in Flat No.223, Krishna Kaishan, Omex Triniti, Police Station- Vrindavan, District- Mathura, where her 11 years old daughter is also residing. On 3/1/2023, at around 7.00 p.m., Jasveer s/o Rajendra, r/o House No.170, Post- Firozpur, Police Station- Khurza Nagar, District Bulandshahr, along with Lalit s/o Harghyan Singh, r/o Badshahpur, Siroli, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, Harish Kumar s/o Daljeet Singh, r/o House No.32 Part 2, M.B. Road, Shadulljav, New Delhi and Anjali, w/o Jitendra, r/o Bahadurpur, Police Station- Parishitgarh, District Meerut came to meet her in the said flat. The complainant already knew the visitors, therefore, she did not suspect anything, who on the asking of accused Anjali went out to bring milk for preparing tea and eatables. The complainant returned at 07.30 p.m., and saw that accused- Jasveer had pulled down the bottoms (Salwar) of her daughter and was putting his fingers in her private parts, whereas accused Lalit was molesting her daughter. As per allegations accused Anjali and Harish Kumar were collectively preparing video and when complainant raised alarm, accused Anjali threatened to viral the video on internet and also abused her. The complainant saved her daughter from all the four accused persons, who while fleeing away from the spot gave threats to her. The complainant went to the police station- Vrindawan, Mathura for giving the complaint, but she was not heard, and even the Superintendent of Police, Mathura did not hear her. The complainant prayed that the accused be summoned and punished for alleged commission of offences punishable under Ss. 452, 376D, 354, 504, 506 IPC, 5/6 POCSO Act and Sec. 67-A Information Technology Act, 2000.

(3.) The complaint is supported with an affidavit dtd. 3/2/2023 of the complainant, and further in support of the case her statement under Sec. 200 Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded. Apart from this, the statement of the victim was also recorded on 6/2/2023 as P.W.1, and upon considering the contents of the complaint and pre- summoning evidence, the trial court proceeded to issue process against the accused persons vide impugned summoning order dtd. 14/2/2023. Hence, this petition.