Disposed

Ritik Yadav v. State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2022/3398/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging a summons and non-bailable warrant, holding no grounds for interference as the applicant failed to place age evidence before the lower court earlier. The applicant is directed to submit an application to the lower court proving juvenile status.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed; Applicant directed to move appropriate application before lower court to establish age and seek proceedings under Juvenile Justice Act.

Ritik Yadav Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3398 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ritik Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rakesh Pratap Singh learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State respondents and perused the records.

¶6

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has assailed the summoning order dated 08.12.2021 and the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow, issuing a non bailable warrant against the applicant in Sessions Trial No. 1683 of 2021.

¶7

The submission of learned Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the Police has wrongly issued a charge-sheet against him under Section 147/323/452/506 IPC.

¶8

His submission is that applicant's date of birth is 04.11.2005 and his case has to be proceeded with in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶9

What appears from the record is that on 12.11.2021 the learned court below had passed an order taking cognizance of the matter and on 08.12.2021 an order was passed for summoning the accused persons, including the applicant Ritik Yadav. Consequent to non appearance of the applicant in spite of issuance of summons, on 20.04.2022 learned court below has

¶10

passed an order issuing non bailable warrant against the applicant. The applicant has not placed his submission regarding the fact that he is juvenile person before the learned court below and therefore, there was no occasion for the learned court below to take into consideration this plea.

¶11

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no interference is called for in the summoning order and the order of issuing non bailable warrant passed in consequence of non appearance of the applicant by this Court at this stage. The applicant is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the learned court below bringing on record the requisite material to establish his age and praying that his matter be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. In case any such application is moved by the applicant, the learned Court below will certainly decide the same with all possible expedition, in accordance with the law.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 2.6.2022

¶14

Jyoti/-

¶15

Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJWANI Date: 2022.06.03 15:52:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ritik Yadav v. State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritik Yadav v. State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and 3 Others

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

Ashwani and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Smt. Poonam Thru. Her Husband Avdesh Vs Rati Ram and 2 Others

Akeel Alias Akeel Khan and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Kuldeep Pandey Vs State of U.P.