Dismissed

Madhuri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Ors.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2024/2706/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act challenges the Special Judge's order rejecting a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C application. The trial Court found the complaint baseless due to contradictions and failure to prove the victim's age. The High Court held no infirmity was made out and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal of Madhuri against the rejection of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C application by the Special Judge Hardoi was rejected and dismissed.

Madhuri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60496

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2706 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Madhuri Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Devendra Pratap,Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶7

Instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) Hardoi in Case No. 78 of 2020 Inre; Madhuri Vs. State of U.P and Ors whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C has been rejected.

¶8

As per the complaint filed before the learned trial Court, the appellant had contended that on the fateful date, her daughter was taken away by the private respondents herein and that the private respondents had also torn her clothes and that she is a minor.

¶9

The learned trial Court after considering the statements of prosecution witness-1 who deposed that upon seeing the private respondents with the daughter of the appellant he had inquired from her as to where she was going to which she stated that the private respondents herein are taking her by force. There was contradiction found in the statement of the prosecution witness-1 and prosecution witness no. 2. The learned trial Court has also observed that the appellant has miserably failed to prove the age of the victim inasmuch as the principal of the school, certificate of which has been filed by the appellant specifically stated that the daughter of the appellant is not a student of the said institution. Thus, it is apparent that the learned trial Court has itself found the complaint to be totally baseless, false & fabricated and consequently, has rejected the said complaint.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the same.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.9.2024 Pachhere/-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Madhuri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ishaq Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dinesh Chandra Verma Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. of Home, Govt. Lko. and Another

Madhuri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Ors.

Satyapal Awasthi vs Aryavart Bank A-2/46 Thru. General Manager /Competent Authority and Another

Durgesh and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another