Allowed

Brahmadin v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2019A482/5271/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside a cryptic order dated 11.09.2017 passed by an Additional Session Judge that ignored victim statements and forcibly sent her to Nari Niketan. Following the Judicial Officer's apology and assurance of vigilance, the court dispensed with his personal presence and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed; the order of 11.09.2017 was set aside; the presiding officer's presence dispensed with as another order had already done.

Brahmadin Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5271 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Brahmadin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Pursuant to the earlier order dated 05.03.2019 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, the concerned Judicial Officer i.e., Sri Lal Chandra-III, posted as the then Additional Session Judge, Court No. 4 (POCSO Act), Mainpur at the relevant point of time and now posted as Additional District Judge, Varanasi is present before this Court in person.

¶6

On the earlier occasion, the Court was quite boggled and got frustrated after perusing such a cryptic order dated 11.09.2017, whereby ignoring the statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., of the victim and her age, he sent her to Nari Niketan, Mathura against her wishes. It is a judicial blunder committed by a senior officer of this Cadre, where he has callously passed the impugned order without applying his judicious mind, which is deprecated by this Court aloud.

¶7

On query at Bar, the aforesaid Judicial Officer was unable to justify his order dated 11.09.2017 passed in S.T. No. 102 of 2017 (State v. Ramlakhan Singh) and cutting a sorry figure he unconditionally apologized before the Court for passing such a cryptic order. He further assured the Court that in future he will be more vigilant in dealing with such a matter.

¶8

On the aforesaid assurance of Sri Lal Chandra-III, the then Additional Session Judge, Court No. 4 (POCSO Act), Mainpuri and presently posted as Additional District Judge, Varanasi, this Court feels satisfied and expects that in future he will be vigilant, cautious in dealing with such delicate issues and not to repeat such a blunder while passing any judicial order.

¶9

My esteemed brother vide order dated 05.03.2019 has already set aside the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 4 (POCSO Act), Mainpuri in S.T. No. 102 of 2017, therefore, no order is needed to be passed by this Court. The personal presence of the aforesaid Judicial Officer is, herewith, dispensed with.

¶10

In the aforesaid backdrop the application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., is, hereby, allowed.

¶11

Order Date :- 7.3.2019

¶12

shailesh

Brahmadin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmadin v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Jagdish and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishesh Joshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rashmi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Rahees Vs State of Up and Another

Head Constable Faujdar Yadav and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Amar Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.