Madan Mohan Shukla @ Madan Shukla vs State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
2018 Latest Caselaw 3080 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2852 of 2007
 
Applicant :- Madan Mohan Shukla @ Madan Shukla
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla,Bhanu Pratap Singh,Dinesh Chandra Tewari,S.C.Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Ajit Shukla,Anubhav Awasthi,Bagesh Shukla,Pt. R.S.Pandey,Shravan Kr. Verma,Smt. Sharda Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

List revised.

Heard Sri Dinesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anubhav Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-the prosecutrix and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

Vide order dated 28.07.2018, this Court was pleased to refer the matter in question to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court.  The Mediation Centre has sent a report dated 27.09.2018, which is enclosed with this paper-book as flag 'A', which reveals that the mediation proceedings were closed on account of the fact that the matter is related to the offence under Section 376 I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that this is a case of false implication as the petitioner had not committed offence as alleged in the charge-sheet, against which he has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein this Court was pleased to grant an interim order on 18.09.2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the aforesaid fact may be verified by summoning the respondent No.3-the prosecutrix.

Sri Anubhav Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has also submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix has not properly been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.  He has further submitted that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded under pressure.

Be that as it may, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the petitioner as well as the prosecutrix (respondent No.3) be appeared in person before this Court and their version may be considered.  Their statements/ versions would be considered in the Chamber.

Learned counsel for the parties concerned are agreeable that if the next date is fixed on 26.10.2018, both the petitioner and the respondent No.3 (prosecutrix) shall appear in person.

List this case on 26.10.2018.

Order Date :- 6.10.2018

Suresh/

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]