High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 01 UK CK 0064

Anil Kumar Srivastava vs State of Uttarakhand & another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 11 January 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhanshu Dhulia
CASE NUMBER
36 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 300 words
1.

Mr. D.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Atul Bhatt, Advocate for the applicant.

2.

Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder, present for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.

3.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that due to inadvertence in the body of present criminal miscellaneous application Session

Trial No.071 has been mentioned instead of Session Trial No.871. The applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the memo of

criminal miscellaneous application during the course of the day.

4.

The First Information Report has been lodged by respondent No. 2 against the present applicant, which has been registered as FIR No.339 of

2017, under Sections 323, 504, 354 of IPC and under Sections 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Sections 3

(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station-Kotwali Khatima, District-

Udham Singh Nagar. After investigation police submitted the charge sheet against the present applicant. Consequently, the learned Magistrate took

cognizance in the matter and issued summons against the applicant. Hence the present application has been filed by the applicant under Section

482 of Cr.P.C., invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

5.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence, no interference is being called for by this Court in the

matter.

6.

Let the applicant appear before the learned Magistrate and move an application for his bail, which shall be considered on its merit in accordance

with law but as expeditiously as possible considering the fact that the applicant is a retired employee of District Court Champawat and is 61 years

of age and has no previous criminal history.

7.

With the above observation, the application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., stands disposed.