LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-197

SONU MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On August 17, 2022
Sonu Maurya Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bairister Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Dinesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State as well as perused the entire records.

(2.) This application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dtd. 30/11/2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court no.2, Varanasi in S.S.T. No.30/2018 (State vs. Sonu Maurya and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.686/2017, under Ss. 354A, 504, 506 IPC and Sec. 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S.-Phoolpur, District-Varanasi, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court no.2, Varanasi.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 14/9/2017 against the applicant under Ss. 354A, 504, 506 IPC with the allegations that when the daughter of opposite party no.2 went to tube-well for washing clothes, the applicant misbehaved with her and when the opposite party no.2 went to house of applicant, he, after using abusive language, threatened to kill. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and the charges were framed under Ss. 354A, 504, 506 IPC as well as Sec. 7/8 of POCSO Act. Subsequently, the court below proceeded with the trial and the victim has been examined as P.W.-1. The chief-examination of the victim, P.W.-1 has been recorded on 30/11/2021 by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court no.2, Varanasi. During course of examination of the victim, P.W.-1, the counsel for the accused-applicant found contradictions regarding age of the victim, therefore, an application was filed being Paper No.15Kha, 16Kha and 17Kha on 4/3/2021 requesting the court below to proceed with the trial only after taking evidence regarding the age of the victim and deciding the same. However, the aforesaid application has been rejected vide order dtd. 30/11/2021 on the ground that the question regarding age of the victim cannot be decided at this stage and the same can be done only after the entire evidences is collected.