Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 420 (UTT)

CHETAN MEHRA @ GOLDI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-09-03

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. In this application, the present applicant has challenged the charges framed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Haldwani, District Nainital in Session Trial No. 14 of 2015, State Vs Chetan Mehra. 2. Before arguing the case on merit, a preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the applicant himself that this case may be treated as Criminal Revision, as the applicant has challenged the charges framed by the court concerned. He further submits that the applicant already filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court at the pre-charge stage, which was ultimately dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2015. Now the applicant is facing trial under Sections 376(2)/354(c) of I.P.C., 5/6 of POCSO Act and under Sections 66 and 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and alternate charge of 67 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which is pending before the court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Haldwani, District Nainital. 3. This fact that at the pre-charge stage, the applicant already moved an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court and the same was dismissed, has not been disclosed in the present application. It has further been stated that he was under the impression that this petition was for different cause of action, which is against the order dated 20.08.2015 by which the court concerned framed the charges against the applicant, which has never been challenged before this Court. 4. Though this is a serious matter, but concerning that the counsel for the applicant – Mr. Harshit Sanwal is a young lawyer and he has stated before the Court that it was done due to inadvertent mistake, nothing further needs to be said on this aspect at this stage. 5. A preliminary objection has been raised by the State counsel that against the order of framing of charges revision would have liable to be filed by the applicant. Since this Court has also have the jurisdiction of Criminal Revision and primarily the argument is remained the same, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application be treated as criminal revision. 6. In the interest of justice, the same is permitted. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to do the necessary correction in the present application. 7. 6. In the interest of justice, the same is permitted. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to do the necessary correction in the present application. 7. The sole ground of the applicant is that the girl/prosecutrix was not minor at the time of alleged incident and the court concerned has wrongly framed the charges against the present applicant. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that this would be a matter of evidence and based on the available evidence on record, no fault can be found in the order dated 20.08.2015, by which the court concerned has framed the charges against the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the present application/revision is hereby dismissed in-limine.