Dismissed

Smt. Subhawati Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2018A482/33632/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 CrPC application, the applicant sought to quash an order setting the victim at liberty due to allegations of age discrepancy. The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's order and refused the prayer to quash, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the impugned order was refused; the application stands dismissed.

Smt. Subhawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33632 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Subhawati Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Pandey,Vageesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 24.05.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Kushinagar, Padrauna, arising out of Case Crime No. 167 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)5 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 7/8 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station - Kaptanganj, District - Kushinagar, whereby the victim has been set at her liberty.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that as per high school certificate of the victim, her date of birth is 04.07.2003, as such, her age on the date of occurrence would have been 14 years. Accordingly, her keeping and protection should not be given to her father-in-law.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made and the submissions thereof advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the material on record is sufficient justifying passing of the impugned order by the trial court.

¶9

From the perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that as per medical report, age of the victim is about 18 years. Moreover, the keeping and protection of the victim has not been given to her father-in-law, rather she has been set at her liberty.

¶10

Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

¶11

In view of above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order passed in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

In the result, the instant application stands dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 4.10.2018 I. Batabyal

Smt. Subhawati Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Subhawati Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Chandra Chaurasiya and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalyan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajmangal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood Alam and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and another

Smt Neelam and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another