Partly allowed

Pranjal Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2025A482/25263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a summoning order passed by a Sessions Court that took cognizance of the applicant despite the chargesheet explicitly stating the applicant was a juvenile at the time of the offence. The matter was remitted to the lower court for trial by the Juvenile Justice Board.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 20.07.2023 set-aside; matter remitted to concerned court for trial by Juvenile Justice Board.

Pranjal Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40946

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25263 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pranjal Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh,Shivam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for opposite party nos. 1 and 4.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 31.07.2022 as well as the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the learned ASJ/POCSO-I, Jaunpur in S.S.T. No. 151 of 2023 (State vs. Waris Ali & others) in Case Crime No. 114 of 2021, under section 292 IPC and Section 13/14 POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 67-B I.T. Act, 2008, Police StationMaharajganj, District-Jaunpur.

¶8

Since the instant application has been preferred and argued only on legal issues which is apparent from the chargesheet itself regarding conduction of trial before the Juvenile Justice Board as per the age mentioned by concerned investigating officer itself and as such process to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant sought the attention of the Court over the chargesheet submitted by concerned investigating officer in pursuance to Case Crime No. 0114 of 2021 on dated 31.07.2022 through which it is crystal clearly mentioned in the chargesheet itself that at the time of occurrence of crime under which applicant has been chargesheeted i.e. on dated 09.05.2021, the applicant was juvenile, it is also submitted by concerned investigating officer that the trial of applicant shall be conducted by learned Juvenile Justice Board.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that at the time of taking cognizance, learned Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jaunpur took cognizance along with other co-accused by way of summoning the applicant with the

¶11

co-accused vide order dated 20.07.2023 in Special Session Trial No. 151 of 2023 (State vs. Waris Ali & others). Learned counsel for the applicant while challenging entire proceedings along with summoning order dated 20.07.2023 passed by learned Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jaunpur only on the basis of specific disclosure of the age of the applicant at the time of occurrence of crime which has been mentioned by concerned investigating officer that the applicant was juvenile on dated 09.05.2021.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA although sought time for filing counter affidavit but failed to justify the prospective narration available in the proposed counter affidavit which might not be in rebuttal of the facts mentioned in the chargesheet and the illegality apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by learned Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jaunpur.

¶13

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, order dated 20.07.2023 is hereby set-aside . Matter is remitted back to learned court concerned for proceeding a fresh in pursuance to specific finding recorded by concerned investigating officer through which it is determined that the applicant was juvenile at the time of committing offence i.e. on dated 09.05.2021.

¶14

The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands partly allowed accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.3.2025 #Vik/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pranjal Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranjal Mishra v. State of U.P. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases