Uttarakhand High Court
3 January vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 3 January, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:40
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 1084 of 2024
03 January, 2025
Anurag
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal
and Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holders for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this C528 application, applicant
has put to challenge cognizance/summoning order dated
03.10.2024; charge-sheet dated 16.08.2024 as well as
the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.150 of
2024, State vs. Anurag, pending in the court of learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge
POCSO, District Haridwar, under Sections 376(2)(n),
376(3) & 506 IPC and Section 3(a)/4(2), 5(1)/6 of POCSO
Act.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the
applicant that the FIR is delayed one; inasmuch as, there
is delay of five years and the applicant has been
implicated in the present case just to pressurize him to
withdraw his name as a witness in a murder case
undergoing against the prosecutrix for which she is in
1
2025:UHC:40
jail.
4. It is further contended by learned counsel for
the applicant that applicant is a student and has a good
reputation in society. He also contends that it is quite
impossible that the applicant raped the prosecutrix for
five years and she did not raise hue and cry. It is further
contended that neither any alleged obscene videos were
recovered from the applicant.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits
that it is a heinous crime and a specific role to the
applicant has been assigned in the charge-sheet.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and carefully perused the entire documents available on
record.
7. From perusal of the FIR, prima facie, the
commission of cognizable offence is made out against the
applicant. In this view of the matter, this Court does not
want to interfere in the matter as the law is very clear on
the point that the inherent powers under Section 528
Cr.P.C. should be resorted to in the rarest of the rare
cases. Accordingly, the application fails and is dismissed
in-limine.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
03.01.2025
AK
2
[ad_1]
Source link