Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Sitam @ Prince Minor – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the applicant seeks to set aside a summoning order based on exoneration in a charge sheet. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the applicability of bnss and pocso provisions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observes discrepancies in the application of cognizance provisions. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. the summoning order is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Aryan Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant and learned AGA for State.
2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to set aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 7.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly as well as entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime no. 375 of 2024 (State vs. Arun & another) under sections 70(2), 89, 123, 351(3) of BNS and 4(2), 5(j)(ii)/6 and 5(1)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, PS- Aonla, District Bareilly, pending in court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly.
3. It is the case of the applicant that after institution of case at Case Crime no. 375 of 2024 which culminated into conduction of the detai
Cognizance under POCSO Act requires a valid police report or complaint; reliance solely on victim's statement is insufficient if the applicant is not named in the charge sheet.
A Special Judge under the POCSO Act cannot summon an accused solely based on a protest petition after a police report has been rejected; proper cognizance must follow the statutory procedures.
The court established that a Magistrate must apply judicial consideration and provide reasoning before taking cognizance of offences, as mere summoning without such scrutiny is improper.
The court clarified that taking cognizance of an offence requires applying judicial mind to the complaint, and mere examination of the complainant does not suffice.
The court held that failure to provide an opportunity for hearing before summoning accused is a violation of procedural rights and Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court held that uniformity in witness statements does not invalidate a trial, and procedural lapses under relevant laws do not preclude prosecution.
The main legal point established is that the cognizance of an offence requires a judicial notice and an application of mind by the court. The court emphasized the necessity to reflect reasons for sum....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
