Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)
Dharmender Hooda vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. & Ors. on 22 November, 2022 cites

Prashant Bharti vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 January, 2013

14. A perusal of record reveals that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has stated that on 31.07.2021, petitioner had taken her to hotel and on the way had offered her cold drink, after consuming which she had become disoriented. FIR in this case was registered on 17.12.2021 i.e. after five months of the alleged incident of administration of the intoxicating substance. However, there is statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the Manager of the hotel wherein she has stated that the prosecutrix i.e. respondent no. 2 had visited the hotel with the accused and she was not in disoriented condition and had put her signatures in the entry register of the guest house on 31.07.2021. The present statement along with the fact that there is neither medical examination conducted nor any evidence is available on record regarding administration of intoxicating substance. Charge under Section 328 IPC could not have been framed as there was nothing on record before learned Trial Court for a grave suspicion regarding administration of the above allegations. Therefore placing reliance on the judgment of Prashant Bharti vs. State (supra), there was nothing on record before learned Trial Court to even prima facie Signature Not Verified CRL. REV.P. 757/2022 Page 7 of 8 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:22.11.2022 18:56:54 Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005013 take a view that ingredients of Section 328 IPC were made out for the purpose of framing charge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 393 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1   2 Next