LAVKUSH UMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Heera Lal Pandey, appearing in person as Opposite Party No. 2, Sri Pratik Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Sri B.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 3.10.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Criminal Case No. 7456 of 2013 under Section 364 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali City, District Mirzapur.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant states that the name of the accused applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R. only on the basis of suspicion. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim recorded on 8.12.2012, it has come into light that as soon as vehicle came near her, she was dragged inside the vehicle thereafter, she was closed in a room. She did not recognize all the four persons who had abducted her but while they were calling, they were talking to each-other saying that 'padwa sale ko bejjat karna tha' meaning thereby that informant was to be insulted. Further it is stated by the victim that she heard the accused saying on phone that 'Pappu Bhai, Lavkush Bhai (applicant) aur Anupam Bhai aapka kaam ho gaya'. Citing the said statement of the victim it was argued that nowhere the said statement indicates that there was any intention to abduct the victim just to commit murder of her as only intention of the accused was to insult the informant, therefore, the offence under Section 364 I.P.C. could not be made out. There was no statement recorded of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However it was pointed out that there was deep rooted enmity between the accused applicant and the O.P. No.2 and to substantiate the same, the attention is drawn of the Court towards the compromise which is stated to have been entered into between the accused applicant along with co-accused and the informant of this case, the documents in this regard is annexed at page no. 22 and 23 of the Rejoinder-Affidavit. Attention was also drawn of this Court towards last two paras of page no. 23 which contains that the second party i.e. informant was under misconception of fact and due to suspicion as litigations were going on between the parties, this case was lodged and that the daughter of the informant does not want to contest the aforesaid case.