State v. Sameer
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed a Section 378(3) CrPC petition seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal. The petition was found highly delayed, and the Court did not condone the delay, leading to dismissal.
What did the court decide?
Leave to appeal is dismissed; all pending applications are dismissed.
What the court decided
$~11
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- CRL.L.P. 525/2023 & CRL.M.A. 28707/2023
STATE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar APP with SI Bijender, SI Kiran Sethi.
versus
SAMEER .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA O R D E R % 01.08.2024
- This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
- This is a petition under Section 378(3) of the CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30th January, 2020, passed by ld. ASJ, by which, the Respondent has been acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 363/366 of the IPC as also Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, in SC No. 56883/2016 arising out of FIR No. 254/13, under Sections 363/366A/376/342 of the IPC and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act, registered at Patel Nagar.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the period of delay of 1145 days in filing Section 378(3) CrPC leave petition is condonable.
Whether prosecution can be heard without credibility on the ground of unexplained delay.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
State
- respondent
Sameer
Coram
Prathiba M. Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court