Petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings under the PC and POCSO Act. Court held that material facts regarding victim version, alibi, and medical evidence must be decided at trial; alibi cannot be raised in quashing application. Application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Before :
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jay Sengupta.
C.R.R./1711/2020
Krishnendu Sarkar
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Anr..
For the petitioner : Arka Pratim Chowdhury, Adv. Rimpy Mukherjee, Adv. For the State : Mr. A. Hossain, Adv. Ms. R.Ghosh, Adv. Heard on : 09.12.2020
Judgment on : 09.12.2020
Jay Sengupta, J. :
Sections 6 & 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act.
2
3
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional application regarding alibi and sufficiency of medical evidence for quashing proceedings can be decided at this stage.
Whether there is any merit in the petition to quash the investigation proceedings under Sections 376 AB and 511 of the Penal Code and Sections 6 and 18 of the POCSO Act.
Whether the pending investigation allows the Court to interfere with the proceedings under criminal revisional jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath PadhiReferred¶19
State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 415 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Krishnendu Sarkar
State of West Bengal
Jay Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
