Allowed

Smt. Baby v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2022CRLR/279/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed the criminal revision filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. setting aside an order rejecting the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The order was remanded to the lower court for fresh consideration as specific reasons for rejecting the case against the main accused were not provided.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 10.12.2021 is misisonceived, set aside, and matter remanded to the concerned court to decide afresh.

Smt. Baby Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 279 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Smt. Baby Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist Smt. Baby under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 32 of 2021 (Smt. Baby Vs. Shivam & others) under Section 147, 323, 452, 354, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Aligarh. By the impugned order, the court below has rejected the complaint of the complainant under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

¶6

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the complaint is supported with the statements of the complainant and the victim and the lower court has wrongly dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., hence, prayer is made to set aside the order dated 10.12.2021 and remand back the matter to the lower court.

¶7

It is argued by the learned A.G.A. that no case is made out. The lower court was right enough in rejecting the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

¶8

As it is the pre cognizance stage wherein the complaint of the complainant has been rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C., hence, there is no need to summon the victim.

¶9

After perusal of the record, it is clear that the allegations made in the complaint have been supported both by the complainant and her minor daughter in their on oath statements. The lower court has mentioned in its order that the victim has not blamed any other accused except Shivam (opposite party no.2) and no medical report has been made available. The parties belong to one family, hence, the incident finding to be not probable the complaint of the complainant was rejected by the lower court.

¶10

If we go through the statements of the complainant and her minor daughter the main allegation is against the Shivam only. It is true that the victim has not mentioned the names of other accused persons except Shivam in her statement but the learned

¶11

lower court has rejected the complaint against all the accused persons. The reasons for rejecting the complaint specifically against Shivam (opposite party no.2) have not been mentioned in the order. The order dated 10.12.2021 is found to be misconceived and is liable to be set aside.

¶12

The order dated 10.12.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court concerned to decide it afresh.

¶13

The criminal revision is hereby allowed at the stage of admission itself.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.2.2022 Radhika

Smt. Baby v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Baby v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Kanhaiya Lal Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Karamjeet Singh Kapoor Vs State of U.P.

Jameel Kapadiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mrs. Neha Chaudhari @ Neha Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Soniya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others