Mohd Haroon vs. State of U.P. And Another (2023 Latest Caselaw 4124 ALL)  

FACTS OF THE CASE

The FIR was reported on 19/08/2022 and filed against Mohd Haroon under Section 354. It was stated that between 18th July to 24th July, he was staring at her through the gap between the walls. She said she noticed him while she walked out of her chamber. On 25th July, when she was going for a daily walk around 8:45 PM at the Yamuna walkway. She sat down near the bench and listened to music when she noticed he was sitting beside her and speaking something. To exchange greetings, she removes her earphones but the conservation led the wrong way and he had spoken which he shouldn’t supposed to so she ignored that comment and left. Due to this incident, she stopped for a couple of days to go to daily walking but on 1/08/2022 she went again for a walk around 8:18 PM Because of that incident she was feeling fear that’s the reason she sent her live location to her friend around 8:40 PM when she sat down on the bench again Mr. Haroon walked towards the bench and again inappropriate conservation followed.

After this incident, he stalked her and walked a few feet away always. She usually wears black sweatpants blue black checkered shirt and running shoes On 18/08/2022 at 8:00 PM, when she walked up the staircase, she noticed him wearing the same outfit as her. Later he followed her and he couldn’t able to walk straight as he was intoxicated. When she sat down on the bench, he also stopped and sat down on the bench. Later when she had pointed her phone towards him he started to talk to some people.

On 20/08/2022 a complaint was sent by the opposite party. The investigation took place under sections 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC and on 08/09/2022 a chargesheet was submitted. On 13/09/2022 a chargesheet was summoned by the civil judge (Jr. Div)/ F.T.C. (crime against women).

ISSUES

1. Whether the court looks into the truthfulness of fact in deciding a prima facia case or not?

ARGUMENTS

On the behalf of petitioner side, the learned counsel Shri Deepak Pandey and Sri Somit Shukla rejected the application discharge dated 12/10/2022 and argued that the trial court did not consider that the fact application should only be tried for the offenses which are made out but not all the offenses stated under the chargesheet.

It is argued that allegation is absent under Section 354, 354-A IPC as such offenses were never made out at all. Also, the entire case is based on the sole uncorroborated version of the opposite party. There is no independent witness to prove her story. The story of her is totally vague under section 161 CrPC and it is also baseless and contrary which cannot be relied on.

According to learned counsel, Sri B.B. Upadhyay and Ms. Arti Agarwal appearing on behalf of the State argue that for quashing the prayer as there is an allegation against him and also in the FIR his name was clearly there. He further argues that on discharging the application court only the prima facia case and not judge the truthfulness of the allegation made against them.

Under Section 227, 239 CrPC an accused can also be discharged. In the case of Sanjay Kumar VS CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368, it was held that during the time of framing the charge, a court must look into all the material facts which are presented before the court and judge whether the prima facia case was made out or not and not need to consider the value of the evidence as any question of admissibility.

In the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2019 SCC OnLine SC 609 the apex court held that during the stage of charges, the court must not conduct a mini-trial and should decide based on prima facia appreciation of the material fact.

JUDGEMENT

The court held that after hearing both sides, as per the law related to discharge it is known that the applicant’s name is there in FIR and the statement of the victim is also recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC. At this stage only the prima facia case has to be seen and not the truthfulness of the allegation.

At the stage of discharge/framing of charges, the court is merely required to shift the evidence to find out whether there is sufficient material ground for the proceeding or not. Now looking at the fact of the case, a prima facia allegation against the applicant is made out and the law as argued above, no case for interference is made. Thus, under section 482 CrPC the present application is dismissed.

Within a week, a copy of this order was sent to the trial court by the Registrar.

The court comes to the conclusion that there has been a prima facie case made out against the applicant and thus the court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The present application under section 482 CrPC missing some merits and therefore dismissed.

REFERENCES

1. https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/allahabad-high-court/2023/february/2023-latest-caselaw-4124-all
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/72492621/
3. https://legaldata.in/court/read/1623137

This Article is written by Nikhil Yadav of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin