VISHWANATH RANA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant and Sri G. P. Singh, 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 impugned charge sheet dated 23.06.2019, under Sections 376, 342 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, arising out of Case Crime No. 556 of 2018 and the impugned cognizance order dated 22.08.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Pilibhit, in Criminal Case No. 1325 of 2019, and the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Pilibhit with a further prayer to stay further proceeding of the aforesaid case.

(3.) It is argued by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The opposite party no. 2 had moved her first application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 21.06.2018 in which she has stated that she had come in contact with the accused applicant on Facebook and gradually she developed sweet relation with him. As per the disclosure made by the accused applicant he had studied up to B.Sc. and therefore, he became ready for getting marry to the opposite party no. 2 but before the said marriage, he asked for establishing physical relationship with her for which the opposite party no. 2 had refused. About five months ago, the accused applicant had taken the opposite party no. 2/victim to meet his mother where she could not find his mother and there again the accused applicant established physical relationship with opposite party no. 2 forcibly and made video clipping of the same. Thereafter, learned counsel for applicant pointed out that a compromise was arrived at between the parties which is annexed at page 71A to 71E of the paper book in which it was decided that the applicant would marry the opposite party no. 2 after two years, as he was preparing for Civil Services. It is further argued that before the expiration of said two years time, the opposite party no. 2 again moved an application under Section 156(3) on 07.08.2018 which is annexed at page 76 to 77 of the paper book which was treated as a complaint and the same was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 18.03.2019 because the opposite party no. 2 did not appear before the court to get her statement recorded. Further it is argued that concealing the earlier two applications under Section 156(3), the opposite party no. 2 lodged the present F.I.R. on 26.12.2018 showing the occurrence to have taken place between 30.10.2017 to 06.06.2018 which is totally false.