Allahabad High Court
Ms. Neeraj Anand vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 January, 2023
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3443 of 2022 Revisionist :- Ms. Neeraj Anand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shama Begum Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Ms. Shama Begum, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (First), Court No.16, Gautam Budh Nagar in discharge application under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure in Special Trial No.559 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.202 of 2018, under Sections 306, 354, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Sector 24 Noida, Disrict Gautam Budh Nagar.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The revisionist has never committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. The complainant never visited a while in the school to attend the parents meeting and the victim who was mostly involved in other activities since last year. The study of the victim was also not satisfactory and when the result was declared, she was found fail, therefore, she has herself committed suicide. No alleged offence is made out against the revisionist but the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the revisionist and other co-accused persons on 6.10.2018 and the learned sessions judge has taken cognisance. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has filed discharge application on 26.4.2019 under Section 227 Cr.P.C., which was rejected vide order dated 16.08.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence of witnesses.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and leaned counsel for opposite party no.2 supporting the impugned order, vehemently opposed and have submitted that while passing the impugned order, the court below has considered all aspects of the case. Nothing remain left to be considered.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned order as well as the material brought on record, I am of the view that the impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons. The impugned order does not suffer from any, illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error and is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons, hence, requires no interference by this Court. The revision devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.1.2023 Ajeet