Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Shanti Devi v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 11584 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17194 (4 October 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


 (Court no. 48)

Criminal Misc. Application  No.   11584 of 2006

Smt. Shanti Devi ....  ......            Applicant -Accused.


State of U.P. & another. .....                Opp.Parties.


Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the mother whose son Sunil Kumar is said to have abducted a girl belonging to an adjacent Village Radhapur.  

2. Heard Sri  Sri S.K. Sharma and Sri A.K. Malviya, Advocates for the applicant  and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. According to the prosecution version, the prosecutrix Km. Alka went with two other girls to the house of the applicant  to attend the birthday celebrations of the applicant's daughter Pooja.  Thereafter, on the next day, the applicant sent the prosecutrix back to her house with her son Sunil but the said Sunil abducted  her and took away with the help of  another person Pintoo to Bahadurpur  and the accused Sunil and Pintoo both had committed sexual intercourse against her will and without her consent. This is also what the prosecutrix says in her  statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, she was also taken to Delhi and Varanasi and both of them continued to have illicit intercourse with her.

4. The applicant contents that she has no part to play in the abduction of prosecutrix  and the prosecutrix had come to her house only  in the birth day celebrations and she is wholly innocent.

5. The counsel for the applicant also pointed out that she has not been named as being involved in the matter by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section  164 Cr.P.C.  The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the continuation of criminal proceedings in Case No. 2172 of 2006 ( State Vs. Sunil and others) under Sections 363,366 and 376 I.P.C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia would tantamount to unnecessary  prolongation of proceedings against her, resulting in harassment and would be an abuse of process of Court.

6. It is not possible for us to say at this stage with any reasonable amount of certainty that the applicant had no part to play in abduction  of the prosecutrix, and, that she was in no way involved  in the commission of crime, because there does exist a possibility of evidence being made available about her involvement in the  abduction of the prosecutrix. It is not possible to say at this stage that no such evidence will be available or forthcoming. We have got to wait, and see, how the evidence  unfolds itself and  any exoneration of the applicant at this stage, would be hasty and pre-mature.

Dt:  4.10.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.