Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C482) No. 945 of 2011 v. State of Uttarakhand through Ministry of Home
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 292, 293
- Indecent Representation of Women Act, 1986 ss. 4, 6
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. Therefore, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily. Parul (Prafulla C. Pant…
Judgment
S/o Deshraj R/o Village Saralpur, P.S. Loni District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Bhupendra Singh S/o Shri Mangu Singh R/o Street No. 8, Khanna Nagar, Jwalapur P.S. Jwalapur, District Hardwar …..…Petitioners Versus
State of Uttarakhand through Ministry of Home Affairs, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun
Dr. T.D. Bela Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali Nagar District Hardwar ……….Respondents Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard.
2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought quashing of the of the proceedings of criminal case 2 no. 2495 of 2005, State vs. Dheeraj Singh and others, relating to offences punishable under section 292, 293 IPC, one punishable under section 5 A/7 of Cinematography Act, 1952 ,and under section 4/6 of Indecent Representation of Women Act, 1986, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar.
Learned counsel the petitioners submitted that petitioners were managers of licensed theater in which movie 'SHARABI RAAT' which has been granted certificate of 'for adults' by the Censor Board was being exhibited. It is pleaded that the raid could have been conducted only by the Entertainment Tax Inspector. It is also contended that petitioners have committed no offence as the movie was cleared by the Censor Board.
However, the allegations in the FIR are that it was found that while exhibiting the aforesaid movie, porn videos were also been shown intermittently. As far as offences punishable under section 292, 293 IPC, and one punishable under section 4/6 of Indecent Representation of Women 3 Act, 1986, are concerned there is no bar for the police officers to register the crime in respect of the offences under said Acts.
As far as factual pleas of defence are concerned, the same can be appreciated by the trial court.
Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. Therefore, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily. Parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 14.10.2011
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.