Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 64 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 332 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Pramod Kumar Singh And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 11 Others on 30 August, 2022
8. When this Court pointed out Mr. Virendra Jain, Superintendent of
Police, Betul that since the applicant, who is facing trial, is not the biological
father of the baby child, then it means that somebody else must have sexually
exploited the minor girl, then it was submitted by Mr. Virendra Jain that now
the police has started further investigation and supplementary statements of
the father and the girl has been recorded on 9/2/2026, i.e. yesterday only, and
they have not stated that the girl was ever sexually assaulted by anybody
else. This conduct of Mr. Virendra Jain, Superintendent of Police, Betul is
just contrary to the judgment dated 4/2/2026 passed by the Supreme Court in
the case of Pramod Kumar and Ors Vs. State of UP and Ors in SLP (Cri.)
No.350/2024. According to which, the police must take permission from the
Court for further investigation in the cases where the charge-sheet/final
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 11-02-2026
19:19:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12048
4 MCRC-6398-2026
report has already been filed. In the present case, why the supplementary
statements of the prosecutrix and her father were recorded on 9/2/2026 has
also not been made clear. It has not been clarified by the Superintendent of
Police, Betul that under whose orders the police has taken up the matter in
further investigation. Thus, it is clear that the police is not interested to
improve its working and is happy with its little effort to protect the life and
liberty of the general public with their poor knowledge of law.
1