Puspendra Singh VS State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Puspendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Binod Kumar Tripathi, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Geetam Singh and Shweta Singh Rana, Advocates

JUDGMENT

Anish Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard Sri Binod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Geetam Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing the charge-sheet no.33 of 2022 dated 16.03.2022, arising out of Case Crime No.27 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as ‘the POCSO Act’) Police Station Dholna, District Kasganj.

3. The facts in brief in the instant case are that the opposite party no.2, the father of the victim, had lodged an F.I.R. on 12.02.2022, alleging that on 26.12.2021 when his daughter went to the tubewell, in the evening at 5:00 P.M., from where the accused/applicant herein, namely Puspendra Singh, took away the daughter of the opposite party no.2, in which his brothers Prem Singh and Rajendra Singh have also assisted the applicant herein. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., the investigation was started and the victim was recovered. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that her age is 17