Dismissed

Kuldeep Singh Alias Honey v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2020A482/1029/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a charge-sheet and proceedings in a POCSO case. The Court held that the submissions raised disputed questions of fact and could not be adjudicated at that stage. Finding a prima facie case, the prayer was refused.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 21.07.2019 and entire proceedings in Case No. 0042 of 2019 was refused.

Kuldeep Singh Alias Honey Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1029 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Alias Honey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Avanish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 21.07.2019 as well as the entire proceedings in Case No. 0042 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 0038 of 2019, under Sections 377, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 67 of Indian Information & Technology (Amendment) Act, Police Station Chakar Nagar, District Etawah pending before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Etawah.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicant that the applicant is on bail granted by this Court. No prima facie case is made out. Prosecution case is also not supported with medical evidence. Charge sheet was submitted on the basis of evidence of the victim. Entire prosecution case appears improbable and unbelievable. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.

¶9

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

¶10

As is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not made out. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 6.2.2020

¶13

Sanjeet

Kuldeep Singh Alias Honey v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh Alias Honey v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabir Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Samtlesh @ Santresh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Jiniyas Vs State of U.P. and Anr.