Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing K.P. Jayaprakash vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 September, 2015

Brijendra Kumar Misra vs State Of U.P.And 3 Ors. on 31 August, 2018

20. Learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 has submitted that the orders under challenge being interlocutory orders, therefore, the revision may not lie. He has cited the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Kerla reported in 1981 Cr.L.J. 460 : Jayaprakash vs. State and in 1988 Cr.L.J.1362 : Sarojini Amma vs. Sarojini. In the aforesaid case the criminal revision which was filed against the framing of charge was dismissed by the High Court, Kerla holding that the framing of charge does not put to end to the proceedings of the trial case until it culminates in acquittal or conviction, therefore, it is an interlocutory order. In the instant case since the trial has been directed to be conducted by the court of Magistrate on the direction of sessions court discharging the accused persons from section 304B IPC, therefore, the Magistrate court cannot frame charge if it so finds at any stage of the trial under section 304B IPC, therefore, these case laws are not applicable in this matter.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R S Chauhan - Full Document

Sunil Mishra @ Arun Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 2 May, 2025

17. Learned counsel for applicant has then referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State of M.P., 2023 SCC Online SC 846, wherein Apex Court has considered the true import of the provisions contained in Section 94 of the Act, 2015. Court upon a holistic view of the provisions contained in Section 94 of the Act, 2015 ultimately denuded that as per the framework of Section 94 of the Act, 2015 only three categories of documents are recognized therein for determining the age of the prosecutrix/victim/child. Since in the present case, the age of the prosecutrix/victim/child under the POCSO Act has not been determined with reference to the said documents but otherwise, therefore, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant/appellant that the finding returned by court below qua the age of prosecutrix/victim/child is not only illegal, perverse but also erroneous. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations made by Court itself in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19 of the aforesaid report. Accordingly, paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19 of the aforesaid report are reproduced herein below :-
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R Misra - Full Document

Rajiullah @ Khurshid vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 August, 2025

23. Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State of M.P., 2023 SCC Online SC 846, considered the true import of the provisions contained in Section 94 of the Act, 2015. Court upon a holistic view of the provisions contained in Section 94 of the Act, 2015 ultimately denuded that as per the framework of Section 94 of the Act, 2015 only three categories of documents are recognized therein for determining the age of the prosecutrix/victim/child. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations made by Court itself in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19 of the aforesaid report. Accordingly, paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19 of the aforesaid report are reproduced herein below :-
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - R Misra - Full Document
1