SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(All) 32463

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SANGEET @ RAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS – Respondent
A482 33983/2016



Court No. - 67

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33983 of 2016

Applicant :- Sangeet @ Raju

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking the

quashing of cognizance order dated 5.4.2016 taken on the

charge sheet dated 23.3.2016 in Case No.290 of 2016 (State vs.

Sangeet @ Raju), arising out of Case Crime No.47 of 2016, u/s

363 I.P.C. and Section 11/12 of Protection of children from

Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Partapur, District-Meerut,

pending before learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and

also perused the record.

The submissions made by the applicant's counsel call for

adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately

adjudicated upon only by the trial court. This Court does not

deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-

trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of

various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the

allegations made against the applicant, is being purposely

avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause

any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to

observe that the perusal of the F.I.R., charge sheet and also the

material available on record make out a prima facie case against

the applicant at this stage. I do not find any justification to

quash the charge sheet or the cognizance order or the

proceedings against the applicant arising out of them, therefore,

the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any

illegality, impropriety or any abuse of the Court's process either.

However, since the applicant has already got himself bailed out,

if he so advised and if the trial is not commenced as yet, the

applicant may move an application seeking discharge before the

court below concerned which shall be decided by the court

below in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, this application stands

disposed off.

Order Date :- 2.1.2023

M. Kumar

Digitally signed by :-

MANISH KUMAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top