On 30th September 2020, Allahabad High Court refused to interfere in a matter on the quashing of the case, Dayaram Yadav (Vakil) vs State Of U.P. And Another. The Court stated that there was no prima facie case made out by the Trial Court.
Background of the Case
On 7th December 2019, at around 6 pm, the Accused (Dayaram Yadav) who is a practising Advocate had entered the grocery store of the victim. He had questioned her about her shop. When she had closed the store and went home, the Accused had followed her. Thereafter, the accused entered her house and had molested her by catching her sari. He had made abusive remarks in the name of her caste. Further, he continued to threaten her.
Submissions at the Court
The Counsel for the Accused stated that he had been falsely implicated due to village rivalry. He argued that, initially, the FIR was lodged under Sections, 354, 452, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2) (v) under the SC/ST Act. Later on, based on the statement recorded by the victim under Section 164 of CrPC, the case was converted under Sections 376 and 511 of IPC and there was no material difference under Section 164 of CrPC.
It was also stated that the victim’s house was not in public view and there were no public witnesses. The Counsel further stated that no medical reports supported the Prosecution. Hence, the Counsel prayed for the quashing of all proceedings, under Section 482 of CrPC.
Contrarily, the Learned AGA argued that the Accused misused his power as an Advocate, tried to commit rape and humiliate the victim. The Learned AGA also pointed out that all the arguments rendered by the Applicant’s Counsel should be considered after the investigation done by the trial court.
Given the above submissions, the learned Judge Rajendra Kumar-IV referred to several precedents given by both the High Court, as well the Apex Court. The judgments rendered in the precedents opined that the High Court was not to embark on an inquiry relating to the validity of evidence available. Thus, the powers under Section 482 of CrPC, were a matter of exception, and not the rule.
Thus, the Court dismissed the application under Section 482 of CrPC stating that the issue cannot be considered before the prima facie case is made out. Thus, the High Court refused to intervene in the matter at this juncture, as it was not a case of grave injustice.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.