Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Allahabad High Court Upholds Addition of Section 376 I.P.C. Charge in Immoral Traffic Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Pathak, dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the addition of a charge under Section 376 I.P.C. against the applicant, Om Prakash @ Jani, in a case related to the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

The case, originally filed under various sections of the I.P.C. and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, took a pivotal turn when the prosecution moved to add a charge of rape under Section 376 I.P.C. against the applicant. This move was contested by the defense, citing procedural irregularities and lack of material evidence.

Justice Pathak, in his detailed judgment, stated, "The right of an accused to have a fair trial... cannot be seen in isolation and same would be considered in conjunction with the provisions as enunciated under Section 216 Cr.P.C." This observation underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair and comprehensive legal process.

The court delved into the nuances of Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers a court to alter or add charges at any stage of the trial. Emphasizing the role of the prosecution and the court in framing correct charges, Justice Pathak noted, "The Public Prosecutor has a duty to be vigilant and apprise the court qua correct facts of the case... for substraction or addition of charges under the provisions of law."

The applicant's claims about the inadmissibility of the victim's statement and other procedural lapses were carefully examined. The court found these submissions to be unfounded, reaffirming the trial court's decision to frame the additional charge.

This ruling sets a precedent in how courts handle the addition of charges in ongoing cases, especially in sensitive matters involving the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The decision highlights the judiciary's role in balancing the rights of the accused with the imperatives of justice and due process.

The case has been referred back to the trial court for further proceedings, ensuring that all necessary legal protocols are meticulously followed.

The legal fraternity views this judgment as a reaffirmation of the court's authority and responsibility in ensuring justice is served, in accordance with the law, without prejudice to any party involved.

Date on 22 December, 2023

Om Prakash @ Jani vs State Of U.P

 

 

Latest Legal News