Rohit vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3449 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 66
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39692 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Rohit
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

Perused the record.

Challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.-2, Meerut ini Case No. 241 of 2019 (State Vs. Rohit) under Sections 354, 354A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- T.P. Nagar, District-Meerut whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by applicant has been rejected.

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A has invited the attention of the Court to the application dated 07.11.2022 filed by applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above, the learned A.G.A. contends that the question desired to be put to the witness have not been stated in the application, therefore, no pleading was raised before court below to show that the question which are desired to be put shall be helpful in finding out the truth. As such, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was wholly misconceived. In view of above, no illegality has been committed by court below in rejecting discharge application. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in NCT of Delhi Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and Another (2016 2 SCC 402.

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not over come the same.

As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

It is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.2.2023

Vinay