Consent can be obtained by putting some one in fear or under pressure- AHC rejected bail in rape and pocso

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27563 of 2020 Applicant :- Pushpendra Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Shivam Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 2. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Special Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2020, under Section 376D Indian Penal Code1 and Sections 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20122, Police StationHasanpur, District- Amroha, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY 3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the victim was in touch with the applicant through mobile chatting. On 17.01.2020, the victim had gone to the house of her aunt and at about 06:30 PM, she had gone to the crossing at Gajraula and the applicant is stated to have enticed her away on the pretext of giving her some gifts on the promise that they shall return within a period of one hour. On the way to Hasanpur, the applicant is stated to have taken her in a room near tubewell wherein one unknown person was standing guard, armed with a country made pistol and the applicant is stated to have committed rape to the victim. It is also alleged in the FIR that after some time, the co-accused, Jaiveer Chauhan and Kovind Chauhan and the said unknown person are also stated to have committed rape with the victim and later on, threatened her to kill her father and brother if she ever reveals their identity to anyone. It is also alleged in the FIR that the applicant had deleted all the chats from the mobile phone of the victim at the time of said incident. The victim is also stated to have been threatened by the applicant of his high connections in high echelons of the society. Somehow the victim had contacted her father and also dialled 100 number to the police whereupon the police is stated to have retrieved her. The FIR was lodged on 18.01.2020 at about 05:10 PM by the victim/informant against the applicant and co-accused persons, Jaiveer Chauhan, Kovind Chauhan and one unknown person u/s 376D & 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. RIVAL CONTENTIONS 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is indicated in the FIR itself that the victim had called the police in the morning itself and she was retrieved by the police. Learned counsel has further stated that as per ossification test report, the age of the victim was 18 years. Learned counsel has stated that more often than not the age of the wards is indicated much less by their parents. To buttress his argument, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of this Court passed in Kalim Vs. State of U.P. and Another3 of which the relevant para-11 of the judgement is reproduced hereunder:“11. In Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (supra), the credibility and authenticity of the matriculation certificate for the purpose of determination of age under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 came up for consideration. In the said case, the Juvenile Justice Board had rejected the claim of the juvenility and that decision of the Juvenile Justice Board was restored by the Hon'ble Apex Court by rejecting the order of the Hon'ble High Court. It was observed therein that the records maintained by the C.B.S.C. were purely on the basis of final list of the students forwarded by the Senior Secondary School where the juvenile had studied from Class 5 to 10 and not on the basis of any other underlying documents. On the other hand, there was clear and unimpeachable evidence of date of birth which had been recorded in the records of another school, which the second respondent therein had attended till class 4 and which was supported by voluntary disclosure made by the accused while obtaining both, Aadhaar Card and driving license. It was observed that the date of birth reflected in the matriculation certificate could not be accepted as authentic or credible. In the said case, it was held that the date of birth of the second respondent therein was 17.12.1995 and that he was not entitled to claim juvenility as the date of the alleged incident was 18.08.2015.” (Emphasis Added) 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance upon the settled case law of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar4, wherein it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that the final report of the police categorically indicates that no offence of rape has been committed by the applicant and he has to be tried on account of the age of minority of the victim. The Apex Court in umpteen number of cases has opined that a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant with respect to the age referred in ossification test report. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that to date, no efforts have been made and it has not been revealed as to who was the unknown person who was carrying a country made pistol and threatened the victim at the time of offence. At the time of submitting the final report (charge-sheet), the Investigating Officer was pleased to exonerate the coaccused persons altogether from all the offences. As per the CDRs, the said co-accused persons, namely, Jaiveer Chauhan and Kovind Chauhan were not found to be present at the place of occurrence. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that even the Investigating Officer has not found the applicant to have committed the offence rather the applicant has been made an accused only on the basis of age of minority of the victim. Neither the injuries sustained by the victim have been disclosed in the FIR nor in her statements recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. In the injury report, no duration of the injuries has been indicated which falsifies the prosecution story. Learned counsel has also stated that the injury report indicates that hymen represented old healed tags meaning thereby the victim was used to sexual intercourse. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the detailed chats of the victim and the applicant filed with the supplementary affidavit indicating their close contiguity. 9. Learned counsel has also placed much reliance upon the statement of one Smt. Neeraj who has categorically stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of one conman Chandra Mohan who runs various institutions in the State of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. The co-accused persons, Jaiveer and Kovind had filed several applications against the conman Chandra Mohan and the named accused persons have been implicated due to the said Chandra Mohan Maharaj who himself is a history-sheeter. The co-accused person Jaiveer Chauhan is the cousin of the applicant. The said conman has misused his power and money by foisting the present false case upon the applicant and other co-accused persons using victim as a conduit. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has further indicated that the police has recovered two condom packets from the place of occurrence at the instance of the victim which indicates that the said act committed, if any, was with the consent of the victim. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the impugned order passed by the High Court on 30.3.2022 granting bail to the applicant is correct. Learned counsel has also stated that the Apex Court has not cancelled the bail of the applicant rather has remanded back the bail application to be re-heard on merits. The Apex Court at the time of remanding the matter back has even granted interim protection to the applicant till 30.11.2022. The applicant has no other criminal history except two cases in which closure report has already been filed and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial. 12. Per contra, Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has categorically stated at Bar that as per the school certificate of the victim, her age is 17 years and 4 months only. Her date of birth is 10.9.2002 and as per her medical report, her age is 18 years. Learned counsel has further stated that as per the settled law of the Apex Court, a leverage of two years may be granted on either side and why not, it should be read on lower side. Learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the recovery memo dated 20.1.2020 which was taken from the place of occurrence at the instance of the victim herein wherein one quilt and two packets of condoms were recovered in which one was found empty and another contained two unused condoms. The recovery of condoms indicates towards the commissioning of offence. 13. Learned counsel for the informant has also placed much reliance upon the medical report of the injured person wherein the medical examination of the victim was conducted promptly on 18.1.2020 at about 06:35 PM at the CHC Hospital, Gajraula. The doctor had found following injuries on the body of the victim/injured but for the sake of brevity, only the relevant part of injury is being reproduced hereunder: External Examination Reddish abrasion over both chests Size- 2.5 cm × 2 cm each. Reddish abrasion 2 cm × 1 cm over dorsal aspect of Rt. Hand at the time of examination. Internal Examination – Lacerated wound 2 cm × 0.5 cm × muscle deep over lower part of vagina at 6 O’ clock position. Reddish contusion over inner part of vagina at the time of examination. Hymen represented by old healed tags. 14. Learned counsel for the informant has also stated that the said injuries indicate the resistance by the victim at the time of commissioning of the said offence with her. Learned counsel has also stated that in the ossification test report of the victim, it has been observed that sternal end of clavicle bone epiphysis appeared but not fused which indicates that the age of the victim is below 18 years and, thus, corroborated by her age certificate. 15. Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that the learned Special Judge at the stage of taking cognizance has summoned the exonerated accused persons Jaiveer Chauhan and Kovind Chauhan as well. Thus, the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. CONCLUSION 16. It is true that the Investigating Officer has exonerated the other named accused persons in the final report (charge-sheet) filed against the applicant only. It has been indicated in the said final report that the conversations between the applicant and the victim indicate proximity between the two. The final report has been filed owing to the age of the victim falling below 18 years, the legal age of the consent.  17. For the sake of verbiage, only the relevant part of the definition of rape is being discussed hereinafter. The offence of rape is defined u/s 375 IPC as sexual intercourse under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions – First.– Against her will. Secondly.– Without her consent. Thirdly.– …. … 18. It is not without reason that both the phrases are put in separately in the definition of rape. Consent can be obtained by putting someone in fear or under pressure or by persuasive influence or other more subtle methods. 19. It is not without reason that the word “consent” is prefixed with “without” and the word “willingness” is prefixed with “against”. 20. The age of the victim is just above 17 years, her date of birth being 10.09.2002. Thus, the consent, if any, pales into insignificance. In addition to it even if, as suggested by the learned counsel for the applicant, the consent is presumed, willingness was absent as is amply indicated by the medical examination report of the victim. The nature, the seat of injury just deflates the claim of defence that it was not rape. 21. The Courts are under duty to deal with cases of such nature with utmost responsibility and sensitivity. It is impudent to look for expression willingness or unwillingness. The act was resisted by her is too obvious by the medical report and that brings the act within the definition of rape as it was against her will. It is true that the liberty of the applicant is at stake but the Courts have to look into the larger interest of the society as well and even the interest of the victim/accuser has also to be taken into consideration as of late even the role of the victim has been accorded a wider view in light of the amendment in the Cr.P.C. by adding the definition of victim u/s 2(wa). 22. Considering the rival submissions adduced by the learned counsel for the parties, the facts of the case, evidence adduced and also considering the nature of offence, I do not find it a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. 23. Accordingly, the application is found devoid of merits and is dismissed. 24. The Trial Court is expected to expedite the trial of the case and conclude it in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one year from the date of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. 25. It is also made clear that observations made in dismissing the bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses and evidence on record. 

Order Date :- 29.11.2022 

 (Justice Krishan Pahal)

लॉ कालेज में संविधान दिवस पर संवाद/ वाद विवाद प्रतियोगिता का आयोजन कर मनाया गया संविधान दिवस

स्वामी विवेकानंद लॉ कॉलेज मंझावली (चन्दौसी) में दिनांक 26 नवंबर 2022 को सविधान दिवस के शुभ अवसर पर संवाद/ वाद विवाद प्रतियोगिता का आयोजन किया गया I  प्राचार्य महोदय ने मां सरस्वती , डॉ भीमराव अंबेडकर जी, एवं स्वामी विवेकानंद जी के चित्रों पर माल्यार्पण कर दीप प्रज्वलन करके कार्यक्रम का शुभारंभ किया I

कार्यक्रम में सभी प्रतिभागी छात्र-छात्राओं ने संविधान दिवस के विषय पर अपने क्रमबद्ध होकर विचार रखें I

 प्रवक्ता डॉ सर्वेश कुमार जी ने संविधान दिवस के अवस पर सविधान दिवस का महत्व छात्र छात्राओं को समझाया I

कार्यक्रम के अंत में प्राचार्य  डा. नरेंद्र कुमार बिंद्रा जी ने संविधान दिवस पर प्रतिभागी सभी छात्र-छात्राओं को प्रमाण पत्र  देकर आशीष वचन प्रदान किये I

इस अवसर पर डॉ सर्वेश कुमार, डॉ प्रमोद कुमार डॉ. बृजेश कुमार, श्रीमती विमलेश मिश्रा , 

श्रीमान केडी शर्मा , श्री अनुज शर्मा जी उपस्थित रहे I

कार्यक्रम का संचालन महाविद्यालय  के नोडल अधिकारी श्री विनीत शर्मा ने किया I

भारत का संविधान सर्वश्रेष्ठ है- अधिवक्ता परिषद ब्रज जनपद सम्भल इकाई ने मनाया संविधान दिवस।

अधिवक्ता परिषद ब्रज जनपद सम्भल द्वारा संविधान दिवस पर जिला उपभोक्ता आयोग जनपद सम्भल, बहजोई में कार्यक्रम आयोजित किया गया। कार्यक्रम के मुख्य अतिथि श्री राम अचल यादव अध्यक्ष एवं श्री आशुतोष जी सदस्य जिला उपभोक्ता आयोग सम्भल मुख्य वक्ता श्री सर्वेश कुमार शर्मा सदस्य प्रदेश कार्यकारिणी रहे। 

कार्यक्रम में श्री देवेंद्र वार्ष्णेय, श्री गोपाल शर्मा, नरेश शुक्ला एवं विष्णु शर्मा (शासकीय अधिवक्ता भारत सरकार), अखलेश कुमार आदि ने विचार व्यक्त किये।

कार्यक्रम में जनपद सम्भल के अधिवक्ता अमरीश अग्रवाल, संजय गुप्ता, योगेश कुमार, लवमोहन वार्ष्णेय, प्रिंस शर्मा(ए.डी.जी.सिविल), ईश्वर चंद्र सैनी आदि  उपस्थित रहे।

ऐसे तो आप मेरा कोर्ट रूम ही खोद डालेंगे… बुलडोजर मामले में गुवाहटी हाई कोर्ट जज ने की सख्त टिप्पणी

चीफ जस्टिस ने कहा कि अगर जांच के नाम पर किसी के घर को गिराने की अनुमति दे दी जाती है तो कोई भी सुरक्षित नहीं रहेगा. उन्होंने कहा, हम एक लोकतांत्रिक व्यवस्था में रहते हैं.

गौहटी हाईकोर्ट (गुवाहटी ) ने मामले में सख्त टिप्पणी की है. कोर्ट ने इस बात पर जोर दिया है कि भले की कोई एजेंसी किसी बेहद गंभीर मामले की ही जांच क्यों न कर रही हो, किसी के मकान पर बुलडोजर चलाने का प्रावधान किसी भी आपराधिक कानून में नहीं है. चीफ जस्टिस आर एम छाया ने असम के नगांव जिले में आगजनी की एक घटना के आरोपी के मकान को गिराए जाने के संबंध में हाई कोर्ट ने स्वत: संज्ञान लिया था और मामले की सुनवाई के दौरान यह टिप्पणी की.

स्थानीय मछली व्यापारी सफीकुल इस्लाम (39) की कथित रूप से हिरासत में मौत के बाद भीड़ ने 21 मई को बटाद्रवा थाने में आग लगा दी थी. इस्लाम को एक रात पहले ही पुलिस लेकर गई थी. इसके एक दिन बाद जिला प्राधिकारियों ने इस्लाम सहित कम से कम छह लोगों के मकानों को उनके नीचे कथित तौर पर छिपाए गए हथियारों और नशीले पदार्थों की तलाश के लिए ध्वस्त कर दिया था और इसके लिए बुलडोजर का इस्तेमाल किया गया था.

जस्टिस छाया ने कहा, एजेंसी भले ही किसी गंभीर मामले की जांच क्यों न कर रही हो, किसी मकान पर बुलडोजर चलाने का प्रावधान किसी आपराधिक कानून में नहीं है. उन्होंने कहा कि किसी के घर की तलाशी लेने के लिए भी अनुमति की आवश्यकता है. उन्होंने कहा कि कल अगर आपको कुछ चाहिए होगा, तो आप मेरे अदालत कक्ष को ही खोद देंगे.

चीफ जस्टिस ने कहा कि अगर जांच के नाम पर किसी के घर को गिराने की अनुमति दे दी जाती है तो कोई भी सुरक्षित नहीं रहेगा. उन्होंने कहा, हम एक लोकतांत्रिक व्यवस्था में रहते हैं. न्यायमूर्ति छाया ने कहा कि मकानों पर इस तरह से बुलडोजर चलाने की घटनाएं फिल्मों में होती हैं और उनमें भी, इससे पहले तलाशी वारंट दिखाया जाता है. इस मामले पर अगली सुनवाई 12 दिसंबर को होगी.

Allahabad High Court ordered the Bar Council to investigate against the lawyer running the business - the lawyer had written an FIR for fraud in the business.

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37337 of 2022 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Singh,A.Z.Khan,Akshaivar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J

 1. Heard Sri A.Z.Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. 

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 85 of 2022, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Section 66 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 15.02.2022 by one Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Chamber No. 236, Civil Court, Saharanpur complaining that on 01.02.2022, some one had withdrawn Rs. 500/- and Rs. 15,000/- from the current account of the informant's firm M/s Ayurherbs Remedies India.

 4. On 09.05.2022, the Police has arrested five accused persons, including the applicant on the basis of information received from a Mukhbir and 29 A.T.M. card and Rs. 16,000/- are said to have been recovered. 

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no previous criminal history. After arrest of the applicant, he has been implicated in as many as six cases, the particulars whereof has been mentioned in paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit. 

6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that coaccused Sumit @ Mitta who was arrested alongwith the applicant has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 12.10.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35728 of 2022. Another co-accused Monu Kumar has also been granted bail by means of an order dated 18.10.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34315 of 2022.

 7. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.05.2022.

 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. 

9. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the fact that the alleged fraudulent withdrawal was made on 02.02.2022 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 15.02.2022 and there is no explanation for the delay; the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person; the applicant has been implicated in the present case on the basis of his alleged confessional statement recorded by the Police after his arrest in another case and two of the co-accused persons have already been granted bail in the present case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 

10. In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

 11. Let the applicant Anil Kumar be released on bail in Case Crime No. 85 of 2022, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Section 66 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

 12. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

 13. However, before parting with the case, the Court is constrained to take note of the fact that the informant has described himself as an Advocate whereas he has mentioned in the F.I.R. that he is proprietor of "M/s Ayurherbs Remedies India"; it appears from the F.I.R. itself that the informant Advocate is running business also. 

14. The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh is directed to make inquiry in the matter and take suitable action in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for taking suitable action. 

Order Date :- 3.11.2022

Consideration of transfer of teachers in special circumstances cannot be refused on the ground that at present no policy instructions and mandate are in effect - Allahabad High Court

Case:- WRIT-A No. 17466 of 2022

Petitioner :- Kusum Yadav

Respondent:- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Man Bahadur Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh, Deo Dayal

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri M.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Deo Dayal, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 and Sri B.P. Singh, learned counsel representing respondent No.5.

The petitioner was initially appointed and is working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Salempur, Block Sakaldiha, District Chandauli. Husband of the petitioner, namely, Ashish Prakash Yadav, is the only son to his parents who lives with his parents at District Azamgarh. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner was diagnosed with serious infection in his kidney and he underwent renal transplant surgery for plantation of kidney which was donated by his mother (mother-in-law of the petitioner). Now both the husband and mother-in-law of the petitioner are suffering from post surgery trauma and kidney related problems as both of them are now living with only one kidney and the petitioner is posted at District Chandauli with one minor daughter as such nobody is there to look after the petitioner's husband and mother-in-law except the old aged father-in-law of the petitioner who is also suffering from old aged diseases. The petitioner has preferred her transfer from Chandauli to Azamgarh for the reasons aforesaid as living with her husband will facilitate proper care and also allow her to discharge her duties properly as Assistant Teacher.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008 (in short 'the Rules, 2008') which permits such inter district transfers of women teachers in special circumstances at the place of residence of their husband or in-laws, which reads as under:

"8(2)(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers iLearned counsel representing the respondents submit that no policy has been framed by the Government as yet in this regard.

The contention is misconceived. The implementation of the provision in Rule-8(2)(d) is not dependent upon framing of any policy. This is not to say that the Government cannot frame a policy but to say that if the Government does not frame any policy, it does not mean that Rule-8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 can't be given effect. The Rules have been made under the Basic Education Act, 1972. There is nothing in the Rules to suggest that any policy is required to be framed under Rule-8(2) (d) of the Rules, 2008 and only then such transfers can be made.

In view of the aforesaid, let respondent No.2, Director, Basic Education, U.P. at Lucknow, consider the request of the petitioner for transfer from Chandauli to Azamgarh, keeping in mind the facts of the case and the object sought to be achieved by Rule-8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008. The application shall not be rejected on the ground that there is no policy framed in this regard for the reasons already mentioned herein-above.

With these observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 4.11.22

(Referred by- Arun Kumar Gupta Advocate)

कोर्ट वकील को केवल दुर्लभ परिस्थितियों में ही उसी दिन क्रॉस एग्जामिनेशन करने के लिए बाध्य कर सकती है: दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट

दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट (Delhi High Court) ने कहा कि कोई अदालत किसी वकील को उस दिन जिरह समाप्त करने के लिए बाध्य नहीं कर सकती जिस दिन वह शुरू होता है, केवल दुर्लभ परिस्थितियों को छोड़कर।

जस्टिस सी हरि शंकर ने कहा,

"हालांकि यह अदालत के लिए खुला है कि वह अप्रासंगिक और सारहीन प्रश्नों को खारिज कर दे, अगर वकील द्वारा पूछा जाता है, फिर भी, सबसे दुर्लभ परिस्थितियों को छोड़कर, न्यायालय एक वकील को जिरह को समाप्त करने के लिए मजबूर नहीं कर सकता है, जिस दिन यह शुरू होता है।"

अदालत ने 27 अक्टूबर के अपने आदेश में एक सिविल जज के आदेश को चुनौती देने वाली याचिका पर यह टिप्पणी की थी, जिसमें एक मुकदमे में वादी गवाह से जिरह करने के प्रतिवादी के अधिकार को बंद कर दिया गया था।

याचिकाकर्ता (मुकदमे में प्रतिवादी) की ओर से पेश हुए वकील ने अदालत को अवगत कराया कि विचाराधीन गवाह से पूछताछ के बाद, जिरह दोपहर 3 बजे शुरू हुई और शाम 6:10 बजे तक तीन घंटे तक जारी रही, जिसके बाद स्थगन को स्थगित कर दिया गया। आगे जिरह की मांग की जिसे सिविल जज ने अस्वीकार कर दिया।

गवाह को आरोपमुक्त करते हुए और स्थगन के अनुरोध को खारिज करते हुए दीवानी न्यायाधीश ने आदेश में कहा,

"यह पहले से ही 06:10 बजे है और प्रतिवादी के वकील ने इस आधार पर स्थगन की मांग की है कि एक अन्य वकील जिसे गवाह से जिरह करनी है, वह आज पेश नहीं हुआ है। यह उल्लेख करना उचित है कि दोपहर 12:15 बजे शुरू हुए थे और PW1 की जिरह दोपहर 1 बजे स्थगित कर दी गई। उसके बाद, दोपहर 3 बजे साक्ष्य फिर से शुरू किया गया, और वादी गवाह की लंबी जांच की गई। न्यायालय इस तथ्य से अनभिज्ञ नहीं है कि वादी 80 वर्ष का नागरिक है और समय की कमी के बावजूद, कई अप्रासंगिक प्रश्न पहले ही पूछे जा चुके हैं। इसके अलावा, केस फाइल के अवलोकन से पता चलता है कि प्रतिवादी के वकील विनय पाठक वर्तमान मामले में सभी तारीखों पर उपस्थित हुए हैं और एक अन्य वकील वी.पी. राणा पिछले 3 साल के अंतराल में केवल दो बार दिखाई दिए हैं।"

अपील में, जस्टिस शंकर ने कहा कि चूंकि गवाह की जिरह दोपहर 12.15 बजे शुरू हुई थी, इसलिए निचली अदालत, सुनवाई की अगली तारीख पर जिरह जारी रखने की अनुमति मांगने वाले याचिकाकर्ता के अनुरोध को खारिज करने के लिए प्रथम दृष्टया उचित नहीं थी।

जस्टिस शंकर ने कहा,

"इसके अलावा, 14 सितंबर 2022 के आक्षेपित आदेश में परिलक्षित, पीडब्लू -1 को जिरह करने के लिए और अवसर के लिए याचिकाकर्ता के अनुरोध को अस्वीकार करने में विद्वान सिविल जज के साथ किए गए कारकों को प्रासंगिक नहीं माना जा सकता है। यह सब सिविल जज का मानना है कि वादी की उम्र 80 वर्ष थी और उससे कई अप्रासंगिक प्रश्न पूछे गए थे।"

याचिका को स्वीकार करते हुए, अदालत ने कहा कि याचिकाकर्ता को सुनवाई की अगली तारीख पर गवाह से जिरह जारी रखने की अनुमति दी जानी चाहिए, जब मामला दीवानी न्यायाधीश के समक्ष सूचीबद्ध हो।

अदालत ने याचिका का निपटारा करते हुए आदेश दिया,

"याचिकाकर्ता को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि वह उक्त तिथि पर पीडब्लू-1 की जिरह को समाप्त करने के लिए सभी प्रयास करें। याचिकाकर्ता को इस संबंध में कोई स्थगन नहीं दिया जाएगा।"

केस टाइटल: सुनीता बनाम प्रेमवती

Live Law

आरक्षण नीति अनिश्चित काल तक नहीं टिक सकती : सुप्रीम कोर्ट

न्यायमूर्ति पी.बी.  परदीवाला, जिन्होंने ईडब्ल्यूएस कोटा को बरकरार रखने वाले बहुमत का गठन किया, का कहना है कि वास्तविक समाधान उन कारणों को खत्म करने में है जो समुदाय के कमजोर वर्गों के सामाजिक, शैक्षिक और आर्थिक पिछड़ेपन को जन्म देते हैं।

संविधान पीठ के तीन न्यायाधीशों ने बहुसंख्यक और अल्पसंख्यक दोनों मतों का गठन करने वाले विचारों में कहा कि शिक्षा और रोजगार में आरक्षण की नीति अनिश्चित काल तक जारी नहीं रह सकती है।

 न्यायमूर्ति बेला एम. त्रिवेदी, जो बहुमत के फैसले का हिस्सा थीं, ने कहा कि आरक्षण नीति में एक समय अवधि होनी चाहिए।  न्यायमूर्ति त्रिवेदी ने कहा, "हमारी आजादी के 75 साल के अंत में, हमें परिवर्तनकारी संवैधानिकता की दिशा में एक कदम के रूप में समग्र रूप से समाज के व्यापक हित में आरक्षण प्रणाली पर फिर से विचार करने की जरूरत है।"

उन्होंने कहा कि लोक सभा और राज्य विधानसभाओं में अनुसूचित जातियों और अनुसूचित जनजातियों के लिए कोटा संविधान के लागू होने के 80 साल बाद समाप्त हो जाएगा।  25 जनवरी, 2020 से 104वें संविधान संशोधन के कारण संसद और विधानसभाओं में एंग्लो-इंडियन समुदायों का प्रतिनिधित्व पहले ही बंद हो गया है।

"इसलिए, संविधान के अनुच्छेद 15 और अनुच्छेद 16 में प्रदान किए गए आरक्षण और प्रतिनिधित्व के संबंध में विशेष प्रावधानों के लिए एक समान समय सीमा, यदि निर्धारित की गई है, तो यह एक समतावादी, जातिविहीन और वर्गहीन समाज की ओर अग्रसर हो सकता है।"  न्यायमूर्ति त्रिवेदी ने अवलोकन किया।

हालांकि स्पष्ट रूप से नहीं कहा गया है, अनुच्छेद 15 और 16 के तहत कोटा रोकने पर न्यायमूर्ति त्रिवेदी के विचार में ईडब्ल्यूएस आरक्षण भी शामिल होगा।

न्यायमूर्ति पी.बी.  पारदीवाला, जिन्होंने ईडब्ल्यूएस कोटा को बरकरार रखने वाले बहुमत का गठन किया, ने कहा, "आरक्षण एक अंत नहीं है, बल्कि एक साधन है - सामाजिक और आर्थिक न्याय को सुरक्षित करने का एक साधन है।  आरक्षण को निहित स्वार्थ नहीं बनने देना चाहिए।  वास्तविक समाधान, हालांकि, उन कारणों को समाप्त करने में निहित है, जिन्होंने समुदाय के कमजोर वर्गों के सामाजिक, शैक्षिक और आर्थिक पिछड़ेपन को जन्म दिया है।"

उन्होंने कहा कि "लंबे समय से विकास और शिक्षा के प्रसार" के परिणामस्वरूप कक्षाओं के बीच की खाई काफी हद तक कम हो गई है।  पिछड़े वर्ग के सदस्यों का बड़ा प्रतिशत शिक्षा और रोजगार के स्वीकार्य मानकों को प्राप्त करता है।  उन्हें पिछड़ी श्रेणियों से हटा दिया जाना चाहिए ताकि उन लोगों की ओर ध्यान दिया जा सके जिन्हें वास्तव में मदद की जरूरत है।

 न्यायमूर्ति पारदीवाला ने कहा, "पिछड़े वर्गों की पहचान के तरीके और निर्धारण के तरीकों की समीक्षा करना और यह भी पता लगाना बहुत जरूरी है कि पिछड़े वर्ग के वर्गीकरण के लिए अपनाया या लागू किया गया मानदंड आज की परिस्थितियों के लिए प्रासंगिक है या नहीं।"

 न्यायमूर्ति एस रवींद्र भट ने बाबा साहेब अम्बेडकर की टिप्पणियों को याद दिलाया कि आरक्षण को अस्थायी और असाधारण के रूप में देखा जाना चाहिए "अन्यथा वे समानता के नियम को खा जाएंगे

पासपोर्ट नवीनीकरण के लिये न्यायालय की अनुमति जहां आपराधिक मामला लंबित है आवश्यक नहीं: बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट

बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने फैसला सुनाया कि आपराधिक मामले के लंबित होने के कारण पासपोर्ट नवीनीकरण से इनकार नहीं किया जा सकता है और इस उद्देश्य के लिए अदालत की अनुमति की आवश्यकता नहीं है।

 जस्टिस एस.वी.  गंगापुरवाला और माधव जे. जामदार उस मामले को सुन रहे थे जहां याचिकाकर्ता ने पासपोर्ट के नवीनीकरण के लिए आवेदन किया था।  उक्त आवेदन पर इस कारण से विचार नहीं किया जा रहा है कि याचिकाकर्ता को उस न्यायालय से अनुमति लेनी चाहिए जहां याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ एक आपराधिक मामला लंबित है।

 याचिकाकर्ता के वकील श्री विवेक कांतावाला ने प्रस्तुत किया कि पासपोर्ट के नवीनीकरण के लिए, न्यायालय से अनुमति लेना आवश्यक नहीं है जहां याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ आपराधिक मामला लंबित है।

 यह प्रस्तुत किया गया था कि यदि कोई आपराधिक मामला लंबित है, तो केवल एक ही सीमा होगी, याचिकाकर्ता अदालत की अनुमति के बिना विदेश यात्रा नहीं कर सकता जहां याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ आपराधिक मामला लंबित है।

 श्री डी.पी.  सिंह, संघ के वकील ने पासपोर्ट अधिनियम, 1967 की धारा 6.2 (एफ) पर भरोसा किया और निष्कर्ष निकाला कि याचिकाकर्ता को पासपोर्ट जारी करने के उद्देश्य से याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ अदालत की अनुमति प्राप्त करनी होगी जहां आपराधिक मामला लंबित है।  यह पासपोर्ट जारी करने का मामला होगा न कि पासपोर्ट के नवीनीकरण का।

 पीठ के समक्ष विचार का मुद्दा था:

 क्या याचिकाकर्ता द्वारा पासपोर्ट के नवीनीकरण के लिए दायर याचिका को स्वीकार किया जा सकता है?

 उच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि इस तथ्य के मद्देनजर कि याचिकाकर्ता को पहले ही पासपोर्ट जारी किया जा चुका है और याचिकाकर्ता पासपोर्ट के नवीनीकरण की मांग करेगा और उक्त आवेदन प्रतिवादी के पास लंबित है, पीठ ने प्रतिवादी को याचिकाकर्ता के आवेदन पर कार्रवाई करने का निर्देश दिया।  अदालत की अनुमति के लिए आग्रह किए बिना पासपोर्ट का नवीनीकरण, जहां याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ एक आपराधिक मामला लंबित है।

 केस शीर्षक: अब्बास हातिंभाई कागलवाला बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य और अन्य।

 बेंच: जस्टिस एस.वी.  गंगापुरवाला और माधव जे. जामदारी

 केस नंबर: 2019 की रिट याचिका संख्या 384

Act of mutual affection between young boyfriend and girlfriend cannot equate with ‘Sexual Assault’ under POCSO Act; Meghalaya High quashes FIR

Assault on victim and the need for stringent provisions under POCSO Act, the Court observed that “in a case where there is mutual love and affection between a child and a person which might even lead to a physical relationship, though the consent of the child under the law is immaterial as far as prosecution for an alleged offence of sexual assault is concerned”.

The Court also observed that “…in a case of a boyfriend and girlfriend particularly, if both of them are still very young, the term ‘sexual assault’ as could be understood under the POCSO Act cannot be attributed to an act where, there is, as pointed above, mutual love and affection between them.”

The Court noted the observation in Ranjit Rajbanshi v. State of W.B., and Vijayalakshmi v. State, Crl. O.P. No. 232 of 2021, order dated 27.01.2021, where it was held that

“There can be no second thought as to the seriousness of offences under the POCSO Act and the object it seeks to achieve. However, it is also imperative for this Court to draw the thin line that demarcates the nature of acts that should not be made to fall within the scope of the Act, for such is the severity of the sentences provided under the Act. Justifiably so, that if acted upon hastily or irresponsibly, it could lead to irreparable damage to the reputation and livelihood of youth whose actions would have been only innocuous. What came to be a law to protect and render justice to victims and survivors of child abuse, can, become a tool in the hands of certain sections of the society to abuse the process of law.”

In the light of facts of the case, argument advanced, authorities cited and in the interest of Justice, the Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings under POCSO Act and absolve the accused from any liability in the aforementioned criminal case.

[Silvestar Khonglah v. State of Meghalaya, Criminal Petition No. 45 of 2022, decided on 27.10.2022]