High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Shanti Devi v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 11584 of 2006  RD-AH 17194 (4 October 2006)
(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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.