Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 646 of 2018 Revisionist :- Shahzad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Faya Nath Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Faya Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
This criminal revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.1.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Meerut in S.T. No.62 of 2017 (State Versus Raees and others) arising out of Case Crime No.76 of 2017, under Sections 363/34, 366/34, 368/34, 354A/34, 376D/34 I.P.C., 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and 3(2)VA of the ST/ST Act, P.S. T.P. Nagar, District Meerut,whereby discharge application has been rejected.
After hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the order impugned as well averments made in the present revision, this Court is of the opinion, that it is well settled that even on the basis of strong suspicion arising out from the evidence/ material on record, charge can be framed against the accused. Learned counsel had endeavoured to scan statement of witnesses on record to justify his submission that prima facie there was no evidence for framing of charge. From the perusal of record I found that there was sufficient material of framing of charge and, therefore, trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the discharge application.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 MN/-