The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a revision judgment regarding custody of a minor daughter. The matter was declared infructuous because a medical board report established the victim was 19 years old (a major). Interim orders were vacated.
Interim order dated 04.05.2016 vacated.
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.
| SL. No. | Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with |
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Signatures | C482 No.485 of 2016 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Ms. Gyan Mati Kushwaha, learned counsel i/b Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Bhaskar Ch. Joshi, learned AGA for the State. 3. None for respondent no.2. 4. Applicant in this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has put to challenge the judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed in Crl. Revision No.47 of 2016 Raghuveer Singh v. State, whereby the revision filed by respondent no.2 has been allowed. 5. Respondent no.2 lodged an FIR on 27.02.2016 against the son of applicant for abducting his minor daughter. When respondent no.2 moved an application before the CJM, Rudrapur seeking custody of his minor daughter, the same was rejected on 01.03.2016. Challenging the said order, respondent no.2 went in revision which was decided by the Sessions Judge, Rudrapur vide judgment dated 01.03.2016. Hence this application has been filed. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed in this matter by the Investigating Officer, in paragraph no.3 whereof, it is stated that a Medical Board was constituted on 06.05.2016, and as per the report of the Board, the age of victim (daughter of respondent no.2) is about 19 years, and thus, she was major on that date. 7. In such view of the matter, present C482 is dismissed as having become infructuous as nothing further remains to be decided. Interim order dated 04.05.2016 is vacated. |
||
| (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.03.2025 R.Dang |
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Applicant
Respondent no.2
Pankaj Purohit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
