High CourtsSingle Bench

Vineet Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 5 November 2024 · Citation: (2024) 11 UK CK 0082

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Purohit, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(n) · Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 115(2), 351(3), 352 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1164 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 122 words

Pankaj Purohit, J

1.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the First Information Report No.0736 of 2024 dated 21.09.2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and 115(2), 351(3), 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to B.N.S.) registered with Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.

From the perusal of the first information report it transpires that contents of FIR are very serious in nature and primafacie the offence is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere in the present FIR by exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.