HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10247 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Certified copy of the order dated 25.10.2011, under challenge, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.184 of 2011 placed before the Court, is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Sashi Bhushan Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "For the facts and reason and Circumstances mentioned in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court to quash the Order dated 18/09/2025 passed by learned Session Judge F.T.C -1, Sultanpur in ST No 191/2025 U/S 363, 366 I.P.C, PS - Piparpur, Dist. Amethi, State VS Ram Vachan and Others, by which the discharge application has been rejected, which is annexed As Annexure No-1 to this Affidavit and also to quash the present Criminal proceedings in respect of present petitioners from the stage of the order dated 25/11/2010, (Annexure No 4) by which the final report dated 30/9/2009 passed in criminal case No. 184/2011 has been rejected by A.C.J.M. court NO -20 Dist. Sultanpur and case has been converted into complaint case. It is also prayed to this Hon'ble Court to discharge to petitioners namely Vijay pal and Sheetala prasad from criminal proceeding initiated by learned Session judge F.T.C-1st, Sultanpur in ST No 191/2025 U/S 363, 366 I.P.C, State VS Ram Vachan and Others. It is further prayed to this Hon'ble Court to stay the Criminal proceedings Of ST No 191/2025 U/S 363, 366 I.P.C. State vs Ram Vachan pending before learned Session Judge FTC-1 Sultanpur during pendency of the petition before this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice." 4. The brief facts of the case are as under :- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ranvijay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vijay Pal And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) (i) An F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No.2 at Police Station- Peeparpur, District -Amethi, registered as Case Crime No.465 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. alleging that the accused Ram Bachchan with the help of applicants enticed away the minor daughter of the opposite party No.2, aged about 15 years, in the night of 10/11.02.2009. (ii) It is to be noted that the F.I.R. as Case Crime No.465 of 2009 was registered in compliance of the order passed by the competent court of jurisdiction on an application preferred by the opposite party No.2 in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 26.02.2009. (iii) The Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") started the investigation and during investigation recovered the victim/daughter of the opposite party No.2 on 30.09.2009 as appears from the record. As on this date i.e. 30.09.2009 the custody of the victim was handed over to the opposite party No.2 which is indicated from the document annexed at page No.26 of the paper book as also from the final report dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure No.3 annexed at page 23), as also from the typed copy of the statement of the victim, on record at page 28 of the paper book, according to which the victim on her own volition left her house on 10/11.02.2009 and reached Patiyala where his father was residing, however, she did not stay with her father. (iv) Based upon the statement, aforesaid, recorded by the I.O. in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. alone the I.O. filed charge sheet, though he was under obligation to produce the victim before the Magistrate concerned for recording her statement before the Magistrate in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. (v) The final report was opposed by means of the protest application. The Magistrate, thereafter allowed the protest application and set aside the final report and treated the protest application as complaint case vide order dated 25.11.2010. The order dated 25.11.2010 is extracted herein under :- "िदनांक- 25.11.10 पśावली आदेश हेतु पेश हई / Šाथȃ के िवDZान अिधवǘा को पूवă की ितिथ पर सुना जा चुका है तथा पśावली का अवलोकन िकया । वािदनी फू ला देवी की ओर से धारा-156 (3) जा० फौ० तहत िवपWीगण के िवɳǪ Šाथăना-पś Šĥतुत िकया गया। िजस पर ęयायालय DZारा सुनवाई करते ɷए सĞबिęधत थाने को Šथम सूचना िरपोटă पजीकृ त कर के िववेचना िकये जाने हेतु आदेश पािरत िकया गया। ęयायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन मȅ सĞबिęधत थाने DZारा Šģनगत Šकरण मȅ Šथम सूचना िरपोटă पंजीकृ त करके मामले की िववेचना करते ɷए ęयायालय के समW एफ०आर० Šĥतुत िकया गया। िजसकी सूचना वािदनी को दी गयी। वािदनी DZारा उǘ एफ०आर० के िवɴǪ Šोटेĥट Šाथăना-पś इस आशय का Šĥतुत िकया गया है िक सĞबिęधत थाने की पुिलस DZारा सही ढंग से िववेचना नहȂ की गयी है बिġक अिभयुǘगण के Šभाव मȅ आकर अिęतम िरपोटă Šेिषत कर दी गयी है। तथा यह कहा है िक िदनाक 10.2.09 को रािś मȅ रामबचन Šािथनी की लíकी को बहला फु सलाकर भगा ले गया रामबचन के साथ 11.00 बजे रात मȅ जाते ɷए कु मारी अनीता को रामसजीवन ने देखा था। Šािथनी अपनी लíकी को दो-तीन िदन तक तलाश िकया िकęतु कही पता नहȂ चला। िवपWीगण उसकी लíकी को भगा ले गये है अतः अिęतम िरपोटă को िनरĥत करके िवपWीगण को तलब करने की याचना की गयी है। मामले के तĖय एवं पिरĥथितयȋ पर िवचार करते ɷए Šĥतुत मामले मȅ ęयायालय DZारा जाँच िकया जाना ęयायोिचत A482 No. 10247 of 2025 2 होगा। मामला पिरवाद के ɴप मȅ दजă िकये जाने योĈय हȈ। आदेश पुिलस DZाराŠेिषत अिęतम िरपोटă िदनांक 30.9.09 िनरĥत की जाती है। मामला पिरवाद के ɴप मȅ दजă हȋ पśावली वाĥते साĨय धारा-200द०Š०स० िदनांक-3.2.11 को पेश हȋ ।" (vi) After treating the protest application as complaint case, the Magistrate concerned issued summons to the applicants to face trial for the offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. (vii) The applicants being aggrieved by the process adopted by the Magistrate concerned, approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482/378/407 No.4785 of 2012 (Vijay Kumar Pal and another Vs. The State of U.P. and another) and on 21.12.2012 this Court protected the interest of the applicants. However, subsequently, this application was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2019. The order dated 15.05.2019 is extracted herein under :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. 2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 20, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.164 of 2011 (subsequent Criminal Case No.156 of 2011) 'Phoola Devi Vs. Ram Bachan' relating to Case Crime No.465 of 2009, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Piparpur, District Amethi and the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Sultanpur whereby Criminal Revision No.112 of 2012 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 3. After hearing the submissions and perusing the record, I find no ground to interfere with the ongoing proceedings. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 4. However, it is directed that in case the petitioners appear/surrender before the court below within 15 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). 5. It is also directed that if the petitioners are admitted to bail and the case is committed to the Court concerned, they would have liberty to file an application for discharge before the trial Court concerned in conformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C., which shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within two months." (viii) After the order dated 15.05.2019, the applicants appeared before the Trial court concerned and were released on bail and thereafter they preferred an application seeking discharge in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C. (ix) The discharge application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 18.09.2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.09.2025 is extracted herein under :- "3. मȈने उभयपW के िवDZान अिधवǘा के तकȍ सुना एवं पśावली का सĞयक अवलोकन िकया गया। पśावली के अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक वािदनी मुकदमा फू ला देवी DZारा मुकदमा िवɳǪ अिभयुǘगण राम बचन वमाă, शीतला Šसाद व िवजय पाल के िवɳǪ अंतगăत धारा-363,366 भा०दं०सं०, थाना पीपरपुर, सुलतानपुर मȅ A482 No. 10247 of 2025 3 पंजीकृ त कराया। िववेचक DZारा उपरोǘ Šकरण मȅ अंितम िरपोटă संćय-73/2009 िदनांिकत-30.09.2009 संबिधत ęयायालय Šेिषत िकया गया िजस पर बािदनी मुकदमा फू ला देवी DZारा Šोटेĥट Šाथăना पś संबंिधत ęयायालय Šेिषत िकया गया िजस पर ęयायालय DZारा अपने आदेश िदनांक-25.11.2010 को Šेिषत उǘ अितम िरपोटă को िनरĥत कर िदया। तदोपराęत संबंिधत ęयायालय DZारा वािदनी मुकदमा DZारा Šĥतुत Šोटेĥट Šाथăना पś को पिरवाद के ɴप मȅ पंजीकृ त कर अिभयुǘगण राम बचन वमाă, शीतला Šसाद तथा िवजय पाल को अंतगăत धारा -363,366 दं०Š०सं० के अंतगăत िवचारण हेतु अपने आदेश िदनांक-22.02.2012 को तलब िकया। वािदनी मुकदमा फू ला देवी DZारा अपने बयान अंतगăत धारा 200 दं०Š०सं० मȅ कथन िकया है िक राम बचन वमाă, शीतला Šसाद जो उसके गांव के तथा िवजय पाल जो उसके पíोसी गांव के रहने वाले हȈ उसकी बेटी पीिडता उŤ लगभग 15 वषă को अिभयुǘ राम बचन DZारा बहला-फु सला कर रािś लगभग 11 बजे भगा ले गया है िजसको उसके जेठ का लíका राम सजीवन ने देखा था। उǘ साWी ने ęयायालय के समW सशपथ ये भी बयान िदया है िक मुिġजम िवजय पाल से पूछताछ िकया तो उसने बताया िक राम बचन और शीतला उसकी मोटर साइिकल मांग कर ले गये थे। वहȂ साWी हेमराज DZारा अपने बयान अंतगăत धारा-202-द०Š०सं० मȅ साĨय िदया है िक उसकी चचेरी बहन पीिíता उŤ लगभग 15 वषă उसके पडोसी राम बचन वमाă के साथ जाते ɷए उसके चचेरे भाई राम सजीवन ने देखा था। पूछताछ मȅ पता चला िक मुिġजम िवजय पाल की मोटर साइिकल से मुिġजम राम बचन और मुिġजम शीतला यादव पीिíता को बैठाकर कहȂ ले गये हȈ। 4. इस Šकार उǘ सािWयȋ DZारा अपने बयान अंतगăत धारा-200 द०Š०सं० एवं 202 दं०Š०सं० मȅ अिभयुǘगण DZारा कािरत घटना का समथăन िकया है। यहा ये भी उġलेखनीय है िक संबिधत ęयायालय के तलबी आदेश िदनांिकत 22.02.2012 के िवɳǪ अिभयुǘगण DZारा फौजदारी िनगरानी संćया 112/2012 दािखल िकया गया था िजस पर संबिधत ęयायालय DZारा साĨयȋ के पिरशीलन व मामले के समĥत तĖयȋ एवं पिरिĥथितयȋ पर सĞयक ɴप से िवचार करते ɷए Šĥतुत िनगरानी अपने आदेश िदनांक-17.10.2012 को िनरĥत कर िदया गया । 5. In Dilwar Balu Kurane versus State of Maharastra (2002) 2 SCC 135, the principle enunciated in Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal 1979 3 SCC 4 has been reiterated as held that the jurisdiction under section 227 of the Cr.P.C., "judge which under the present code, an experience court, cannot act merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total impact of the evidence and the documents produce before the court, the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. It is however, does not mean that the judge should make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he is conducting a trial. The court is not required to hold a mini-trial at the stage of discharge. 6. अतः उपयुăǘ िविध Dzवĥथा, सािWयȋ के बयान एवं समĥत अिभयोजन के Šपśȋ के पिरशीलन के उपराęत उǘ Šकरण मȅ अिभयुǘगण के िवɴǪ Šथम ɯǸया मामला बनता है एवं अिभयुǘगण के िवɴǪ सुसगत धाराɛ मȅ आरोप िवरिचत िकये जाने का आधार पयाăĚत है। अिभयुǘगण की तरफ से Šेिषत Šाथăना पś 5 ख िनरĥत िकये जाने योĈय है। आदेश अिभयुǘगण की तरफ से Šेिषत Šाथăना पś 5 ख िनरĥत िकया जाता है। तDZसार आपिǥ 9 ख िनĥतािरत की जाती है। पśावली वाĥते आरोप के िबęɭ पर सुनवाई/आरोप िवरचन हेतु िदनांक-30.09.2025 को Šĥतुत हो। सĞबिęधत अिभयोग के सभी अिभयुǘगण को िनदȆिशत िकया जाता है िक िनयत ितिथ पर ęयायालय के समW Dzिǘगत ɴप से उपिĥथत होना सुिनिdzत करȅ।" 5. In the aforesaid background of the case, the applicants have filed the present application seeking the relief(s) quoted above. 6. For the purposes of causing interference, Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted as under :- A482 No. 10247 of 2025 4 (i) That the order passed by the Magistrate dated 25.10.2010 treating the protest application as complaint case is not a speaking order. (ii) The victim was not produced before the Magistrate in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and despite this the Magistrate treated the protest application as complaint case and issued the summons to the applicants to face the trial for the offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. 7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayers sought by applicants. 8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record. 9. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that no interference is required in the matter. It is for the following reason (s) :- (i) The plea of non examination of the victim in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. was available when the applicants approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482/378/407 No.4785 of 2012 (Vijay Kumar Pal and another Vs. The State of U.P. and another) and this application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2019 and therefore this plea/ground, which was available to the applicants at that relevant point of time cannot be raised at the subsequent stage of proceedings, as observed in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1399. (ii) The discharge application, on record as Annexure No.8 to the present application, indicates that the same was preferred by the applicants Vijay Kumar Pal S/o Ram Bahor Pal and Sheetala Prasad S/o Gayadeen on the aforesaid plea/ground, which could not be considered in view of aforesaid. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the application. It is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. December 9, 2025 ML/- A482 No. 10247 of 2025 5 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench