# Devendra Yadav & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 729
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 11043 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rahul Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-yadav-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50011
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

The SC and the ST Act, 1989-Application u/s
156 (3) Cr.P.C. converted into complaint casesummoned
accused-impugned-without
application of mind-parallel proceeding by way
of FIR is already progressing -without holding
mandatory inquiry u/s 202 (1) Cr.P.C.-impugned
order passed-Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. could
be filed assailing the summoning order under
SC/ST Act-impugned order quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Devendra Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
729
too would not exercise its powers under
Section 482 of the Code to quash the
prosecution in an offence of this nature,
where the conscience of the society is most
certainly involved. It is not an offence
which is in the domain of a kind of private
dispute between parties, about which the
society may have no substantial concern.

7. In view of the above, the prayer to
quash proceedings of the aforesaid case is
hereby refused.

8. It is, however, clarified that the
remarks in this order may not be construed
to mean that the applicant is guilty of the
offences charged. That is to be tested at the
trial, unaffected by any remark in this
order.

9. In the result, this application fails
and consequently, stands rejected.

10. Let this order be communicated to
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.
22, Allahabad through the learned Sessions
Judge,
Allahabad
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 729
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 11043 of 2023

Devendra Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Mohit Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

The SC and the ST Act, 1989-Application u/s
156 (3) Cr.P.C. converted into complaint casesummoned
accused-impugned-without
application of mind-parallel proceeding by way
of FIR is already progressing -without holding
mandatory inquiry u/s 202 (1) Cr.P.C.-impugned
order passed-Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. could
be filed assailing the summoning order under
SC/ST Act-impugned order quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gulam Rasool Khan & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. in Crl. Appeal No. 1000 of 2018 decided on
28.07.2022

2. Ramawatar Vs St. of M.P., 2021 SCC Online
SC 966 decided on 25.10.2021 in Crl. Appeal
No. 1393 of 2011

3.
B.Venkateswaran
&
ors.
Vs
P.
Bakthavatchalam 2023 SC Online SC 14

4. Priyanka Srivastava & anr. Vs St. of U. P. &
ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287

5. Lallan Kumar Singh & ors. Vs St. of Mah.
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 833

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned
counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for
the State and perused the material on
record.

2. Since in the instant 482 application,
on admitted facts, purely question of law
has to be adjudicated, thus without inviting
counter affidavit, the present 482 Cr.P.C.
application is being decided with the aid
and help of learned AGA at the admission
stage itself.
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The question of sustainability of
the present 482 Cr.P.C. application against
the impugned order of summoning under
Sections 147, 148, 323, 354Kha, 452, 504
IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S.
Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar pending in
the court of Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge, SC/ST
Act,
Kanpur
Dehat
and
impugned
summoning order dated 19.11.2022 passed
by the same court.

4. The extra ordinary powers of this
Court has been invoked by the applicants
challenging the entire proceeding of SST
No. 77 of 2019 (Geeta Devi Vs. Devendra
Yadav & others) under the aforesaid
sections of the IPC pending in the court of
Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Court No.2/Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Kanpur Dehat including the impugned
summoning order dated 19.11.2022.

5. As the matter relates to the
"maintainability of the present 482 Cr.P.C.
application" in the light of the full Bench
decision of this Court in the case of Gulam
Rasool Khan and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others in Crl. Appeal No. 1000 of
2018 decided on 28.07.2022, whereby
learned Single Judge vide order dated
03.08.2018 has referred the matter to the
larger
bench
and
has
framed
the
following question, which are quoted
herein below:-

(i) Whether a Single Judge of this
Court while deciding Criminal Appeal
(Defective) No. 523/2017 In re : Rohit Vs.
State of U.P. and another vide judgment
dated 29.08.2017 correctly permitted the
conversion of appeal under Section 14 A of
the Act, 1989 into a bail application by
exercising the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

(ii) Whether keeping in view the
judgment of Rohit (supra), an aggrieved
person will have two remedies available of
preferring an appeal under the provisions
of Section 14 A of the Act, 1989 as well as
a bail application under the provisions of
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.?

(iii)
Whether
an
aggrieved
person who has not availed of the remedy
of an appeal under the provisions of
Section 14 A of Act, 1989 can be allowed
to approach the High Court by preferring
an application under the provisions of
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

(iv) What would be the remedy
available to an aggrieved person who has
failed to avail the remedy of appeal under
the provision of Act, 1989 and the time
period for availing the said remedy has
also lapsed?

6. Learned AGA has further drawn
the attention of the Court to the Section
14A(1), which speaks about the appeal in
SC/ST Act, 1989, which reads thus:-

"14A.Appeals.-(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2
of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any
judgment, sentence or order, not being
an interlocutory order, of a Special
Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to
the High Court both on facts and on
law."

7. While referring above mentioned
legal questions, responding to the query
no.3, whether an aggrieved person who has
without availing of the remedy of an appeal
under the provisions of Section 14A(1) of
the Act, 1989, could be allowed to
approach the High Court by preferring an
4 All. Devendra Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
731
application under the provisions of Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. is justified ?.

8. The full bench in paragraph 13 and
14 of its judgment negated its reply by
making a mention that :-

13. The answer to the aforesaid
was in the negative. It was held that
against the judgments or orders, for which
remedy has been provided under Section
14A(1) of the 1989 Act, invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court by filing petition
under Articles 226 or 227 of the
Constitution of India, a revision under
Section 397 Cr.P.C. or an application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., will not be
maintainable.

14. Hence, the answer to
Question No.(III) will be in negative
namely, that the aggrieved person
having remedy of appeal under Section
14A(1) of the 1989 Act, cannot be
allowed to invoke inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C..

9. Learned AGA has strenuously
hammered his submissions that present
482
Cr.P.C.
application
is
not
maintainable
in
the
light
of
the
aforementioned observations made by
full Bench of this Court in the case of
Gulam Rasool Khan (supra).

10. Responding to the aforesaid
preliminary objection, Sri Mohit Singh,
learned counsel for the applicants refuted
the submissions by making a mention that
there are catena of decisions of Hon'ble
Apex
Court
with
regard
to
the
maintainability
of
the
482
Cr.P.C.
application, even though the provisions of
SC/ST Act is present.

11. Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel
for the applicant has cited a judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 966
decided on 25.10.2021 in Crl. Appeal No.
1393 of 2011, whereby the full Bench of
Hon'ble Apex Court decided the issue in
most lucid terms. The relevant paragraph
nos. 9 and 16, which are quoted herein
below:-

"9.
Having
heard
learned
Counsel for the parties at some length, we
are of the opinion that two questions fall
for our consideration in the present
appeal. First, whether the jurisdiction of
this
Court
under Article
142 of
the
Constitution can be invoked for quashing
of criminal proceedings arising out of a
''noncompoundable offence? If yes, then
whether the power to quash proceedings
can be extended to offences arising out of
special statutes such as the SC/ST Act?

16. On the other hand, where it
appears to the Court that the offence in
question, although covered under the
SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in
nature, or where the alleged offence has
not been committed on account of the
caste of the victim, or where the
continuation of the legal proceedings
would be an abuse of the process of law,
the Court can exercise its powers to quash
the proceedings. On similar lines, when
considering a prayer for quashing on the
basis of a compromise/settlement, if the
Court is satisfied that the underlying
objective of the Act would not be
contravened or diminished even if the
felony in question goes unpunished, the
mere fact that the offence is covered under
a ''special statute' would not refrain this
Court or the High Court, from exercising
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
their respective powers under Article 142
of the Constitution or Section 482
Cr.P.C."

12. Since the case of Gulam Rasool
Khan
was
decided
in
the
year
2022*28.07.2022) whereas Ramawtar case
was decided in 2021, thus, it has been
contended by the counsel that 482 Cr.P.C.
application is maintainable even it relates
to SC/ST Act.

13. Sri Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that while deciding the
case of Gulam Rasool Khan (supra),
learned Division Bench of this Court has
never relied upon or even considered the
ratio laid down in the judgment of
Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. and thus
could be safely be termed as per incuriam.

14. There is yet another judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court cited by learned
counsel for the applicants in the case of
B.Venkateswaran and others Vs. P.
Bakthavatchalam reported in 2023 SC
Online SC 14 decided on 05.01.2023 in
Criminal Appeal No. 1555 of 2022. In so
many words the, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has opined that :-

"From the aforesaid, it seems
that the private civil dispute between the
parties
is
converted
into
criminal
proceedings. Initiation of the criminal
proceedings
for
the
offences
under
Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
therefore, is nothing but an abuse of
process of law and Court. From the
material on record, we are satisfied that
no case for the offences under Sections
3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out, even
prima facie. None of the ingredients
of Sections
3(1)(v) and
(va)
of
the
Scheduled
Castes
and
the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
are made out and/ or satisfied. Therefore,
we are of the firm opinion and view that in
the facts and circumstances of the case,
the High Court ought to have quashed the
criminal proceedings in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court, therefore,
is unsustainable and the same deserves to
be quashed and set aside and the criminal
proceedings
initiated
against
the
appellants deserves to be quashed and set
aside."

15.

Thus
from
the
aforesaid
discussions, it is clear that Hon'ble Apex
Court has clearly and time and again have
opined that elaborating the aforesaid
provision of full bench of this Court as well
as Hon'ble Apex Court and taking the help
of the aforesaid judgments, the Court is of
the considered opinion that 482 Cr.P.C.
application could be filed assailing the
summoning order.

16. Now coming to the main issue
whereby the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. converted into a complaint
case vide order dated 08.05.2019 passed by
Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Court No.2/Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Kanpur Dehat.

17. The Sepcial Judge, SC/ST Act
vide summoning order dated 19.11.2022
has summoned the applicants, namely,
Devendra Yadav, Babulal Yadav, Laloo
Yadav, Lakhan Raidas, Naresh, Amar
Singh, Sonu and Arvind under Sections
147, 148, 323, 354Kha, 452 and 504 IPC
4 All. Devendra Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
733
and Sections 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act to face the
prosecution.

18. The genesis of the case starts from
filing of the 156(3) Cr.P.C. application by
opposite party no.2 on 27.09.2018 for the
incident said to have been taken place on
05.04.2018. The said application was
registered as Misc. Case No. 443/12/2018
(Geeta Devi Vs. Devendra Yadav and
others). After filing of 156(3) Cr.P.C.
application, the court concerned has called
for the report from the concerned police
station, whereby the concerned police
station has submitted the detailed report,
which is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the
affidavit accompanying the application.
The said report indicates that :-

"आवेदिका श्रीमती गीता द्वारा अपने प्रार्थना
पत्र
धरा
156(3)
सी.आर.पी.सी.
में
दिनाांदकत
27.09.2018 में अांदकत घटना के सम्बन्ध में श्रीमती
गांगाजली पत्नी राजाराम दनवासी बावनझाला र्ाना दबल्हौर
कानपुर नगर में मु.अ.स. 159/18 धारा 147, 452, 504,
380 आई.पी.सी. की एफ.आई.आर. पांजीकृत करायी जा
चुकी है। जो सभी सजातीय व्यदियों के दवरुद्ध है। इसी
अदभयोग की घटना में आवेदिका श्रीमती गीता घायल हुयी
र्ी दजसका अदभयोग पांजीकृत हो चुका है। दकन्तु आवेदिका
श्रीमती गीता िेवी ग्राम प्रधान िेवेंद्र यािव एवां उसी पररवार के
बाबूलाल यािव व लालू यािव के दवरुद्ध एस.सी./एस.टी.
एक्ट का अदभयोग दलखवाना चाहती है। और पूवथ में भी
प्रयास कर चुकी है। दकन्तु सफल नहीं हुयी आवेदिका द्वारा
अपने प्रार्थना पत्र में अांदकत तथ्यों के सम्बन्ध में पूवे में ही
दिनाांक 10.04 .18 को मु.अ.स. 159/18 धारा 147,
452, 504, 380 आई.पी.सी. पांजीकृत हो चुका है। दजसमें
आवेदिका श्रीमती गीता चश्मिीि साक्षी है।"

19. Vide order dated 08.05.2019, the
Special Judge has treated the application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C as complaint
case and proceed the said application case
like complaint case adhering the procedure
of Chapter XV of Cr.P.C.. In addition to
this on 02.09.2019, the opposite party no.2
has recorded her statement and supported
the version of the complaint, thereafter the
statements of complainant's witnesses,
namely, Bandana and Smt. Gangajali were
recorded on 10.10.2019 and 25.11.2019.

20. Learned counsel for the applicant
have accused that learned Trial Judge that
he has passed the impugned summoning
order
with
pre-meditated
mind
on
19.11.2022.

21. The Court has occasioned to to
peruse the summoning order in which
Special Judge, SC/ST Act have narrated the
statements and have jumped into the
conclusion that prima facie case is made
out against the applicant under Section 147,
148, 323, 354Kha, 452, 504 IPC and
Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act. It is contended
by the counsel that there is no application
of any judicial mind or judicial satisfaction
of the court concerned, which is sine-quonon and pre-requisite of summoning the
accused as contemplated in the case of
Lallan Kumar Singh and others Vs. State
of Maharashra reported in 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 833, paragraph 28 is quoted herein
below:-

"28. The order of issuance of
process is not an empty formality. The
Magistrate is required to apply his mind as
to
whether
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding exists in the case or not. The
formation of such an opinion is required
to be stated in the order itself. The order is
liable to be set aside if no reasons are
given therein while coming to the
conclusion that there is a prima facie case
against the accused. No doubt, that the
order need not contain detailed reasons. A
reference in this respect could be made to
the judgment of this Court in the case of
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation9, which reads thus:

"51. On the other hand, Section
204 of the Code deals with the issue of
process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. This
section relates to commencement of a
criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate 9
(2015) 4 SCC 609 taking cognizance of a
case (it may be the Magistrate receiving
the complaint or to whom it has been
transferred under Section 192), upon a
consideration of the materials before him
(i.e. the complaint, examination of the
complainant and his witnesses, if present,
or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that
there is a prima facie case for proceeding
in respect of an offence, he shall issue
process against the accused.

52. A wide discretion has been
given as to grant or refusal of process and
it must be judicially exercised. A person
ought not to be dragged into court merely
because a complaint has been filed. If a
prima facie case has been made out, the
Magistrate ought to issue process and it
cannot be refused merely because he
thinks that it is unlikely to result in a
conviction.

53.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
ground
for
proceeding"
appearing in Section 204 are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply
suggest that an opinion is to be formed
only after due application of mind that
there is sufficient basis for proceeding
against the said accused and formation of
such an opinion is to be stated in the order
itself. The order is liable to be set aside if
no reason is given therein while coming to
the conclusion that there is prima facie
case against the accused, though the order
need not contain detailed reasons. A
fortiori, the order would be bad in law if
the reason given turns out to be ex facie
incorrect."

22. In addition to this, it is argued by
learned counsel that the court below has
passed
an
impugned
order
dated
08.05.2021 observing therein that the
police have submitted a report that there is
no FIR is registered at the police station.
The aforesaid observation is nothing but a
tissue of utter falsehood for the reasons best
known to the concerned Special Judge. The
aforesaid police report as mentioned in
earlier paragraphs, which clearly indicates
that there is a FIR lodged by Smt.
Gangajali wife of Rajaram as case crime
no. 159 of 2018, under Sections 147, 452,
504, 380 IPC. In the present case, opposite
party no.2 Geeta also sustained injuries but
she was adment to get the criminal case
registered under the SC/ST Act, she is
playing all the tricks and gimmicks with the
court process and learned Special Judge,
SC/ST Act is supporting her calls and
therefore, the present proceeding would
safely be termed as second complaint on
the same facts, though its complainant is a
different lady.

23. In addition to above, learned
counsel for the applicant submits that the
court below has not complied with the
directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Priyanka Srivastava and anothers
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, in which it
is stated that no inquiry was conducted as
contemplated in Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.,
which reads thus:-

"Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.-(1) Any
Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of
4 All. Devendra Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
735
an offence of which he is authorised to
take cognizance or which has been made
over to him under section 192, may, if he
thinks fit, postpone the issue of process
against the accused, and either inquire
into the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by a police
officer or by such other person as he
thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding
whether or not there is sufficient ground
for proceeding: Provided that no such
direction for investigation shall be
made,--

(a) where it appears to the
Magistrate that the offence complained of
is triable exclusively by the Court of
Session; or

(b) where the complaint has not
been made by a Court, unless the
complainant and the witnesses present (if
any) have been examined on oath under
section 200."

24. In the instant case, where the
contesting parties are resident of Kanpur
Nagar. The Court wonders as to what
circumstances, Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Kanpur Dehat has passed the impugned
summoning order without holding the
requisite mandatory inquiry as contemplated
in Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and therefore, the
impugned summoning order is well short of
aforesaid legal issues, which cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.

25. The Court has occasion to peruse
the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) and the
relevant paragraphs which are useful for the
present controversy are quoted herein below:-

"The instant case exemplifies in
enormous magnitude to take recourse to
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as if, it is a routine
procedure. The Judicial Magistrate in the
p resent case while exercising the power
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has narrated
the allegation made in the application
and, thereafter, without any application of
mind, has passed an order to register an
FIR for the offences mentioned in the
application.

The duly cast on the Magistrate
while exercising power under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be marginalised.
The power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
warrants application of judicial mind. A
court of law is involved. It is not the police
taking steps at the stage of Section 154
Cr.P.C.. The Magistrate exercising power
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to
remain vigilant with regard to the
allegation made and the nature of
allegation and not to issue directions
without proper application of mind. He
has to bear in mind that sending the
matter
for
investigation
would
be
conducive to justice and then he may pass
the requisite order. There has to be prior
applications under Sections 154(1) and
154(3) Cr.P.C. while filing a petition
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Both the
aspects should be clearly spelt out in the
application and necessary documents to
that effect shall be filed. A litigant at this
own whim cannot invoke the authority of
the Magistrate under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.. A principled and really aggrieved
citizen with clean hands must have free
access to invoke the said power. It protects
the citizens but when perverted litigants
take this route to harass their fellow
citizens, efforts must be made to scuttle
and curb the same. A number of cases
pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial
dispute/family
disputes,
commercial
offences,
medical
negligence
cases,
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
corruption cases and the cases where
there
is
abnormal
delay/laches
in
initiating criminal prosecution, are being
filed. Consequently, in an appropriate
case, the truth and veracity of the
allegations made can be verified by the
Magistrate, regard being had to the nature
thereof."

26. Thus taking into account the
totality of the circumstances and the
observation made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in this regard, I have got no
hesitation
to
quash
the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
19.11.2022
passed by Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge, SC/ST
Act,
Kanpur
Dehat.
Since
parallel
proceeding by way of FIR is already
progressing and the present controversy
is nothing but an arm twisting of the
applicants by levelling more serious and
grim allegation in it and therefore, it
cannot be sustained and the present
application stands ALLOWED.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 736
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 15253 of 2022

Kajal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rohit Nandan Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482-Applicant
accused of aiding the prime accused of rapecriminal conspiracy-to provide due opportunity
to prime accuse to conduct rape-being women
will not exonerate her of criminal conspiracy-her
role duly St.d in the St.ment of victim u/s 161
Cr.P.C. and u/s 164 Cr.P.C.-also evidence
sufficient to file charge sheet.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bable Vs St. of Chattisgarh A.I.R. 2012 SC
2621

2. Mukesh Vs NCT of Delhi & anr, AIR 2017 SC
2161

3. Mrityunjai Vishwas Vs Pranav @ Kutti Vishwas
& anr. AIR 2013 SC 3334

4. St. of U.P. Vs Manoj Kr Pandey AIR 2009, SC
711

5. Santosh Mulya Vs St. of Karn., 2010 5 SCC
445

6. Priya patel Vs St. of M.P. (2006) 6 SCC 263

7. Criminal Appeal no. 64/2006 -Sarla Vs St.
order date 06.02.2014

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

१. प्रार्थिनी की तरफ से र्िद्वान अर्ििक्ता श्री रोर्ित नन्दन
पाण्डेय तथा उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य की तरफ से र्िद्वान अपर शासकीय
अर्ििक्ता पंकज कुमार र्िपाठी को सुना एिं पिािली का
अिलोकन र्कया।

२. यि प्राथिना पि िाद संख्या 211 िर्ि 2017 अपराि
संख्या 290/2017 अन्तर्ित िारा 376, 120-बी एिं 3/4
पॉक्सो अर्िर्नयम थाना र्सिानी र्ेट जनपद र्ार्जयाबाद द्वारा र्िशेर्
न्यायािीश (पॉक्सो अर्िर्नयम) में प्रस्तुत आरोप पि र्दनााँर्कत
17.09.2017 तथा संज्ञान आदेश र्दनााँर्कत 06.10.2017
एिं र्िशेर् न्यायािीश पाक्सो अर्िर्नयम, र्ार्जयाबाद द्वारा पाररत