The High Court declined to quash an FIR but granted an interim direction prohibiting the arrest of the minor petitioner until the police submit their report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
Petitioner not to be arrested until police report is filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11641 of 2018 Petitioner :- Km. Gayatri (Minor) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi,Ajai Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No.49 of 2018, under Section- 363, 366 IPC P.S.-Shivrajpur, district- Kanpur Nagar.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that present petitioner is a minor daughter of Chandrapal and she has been implicated in the present case only on account of the fact that she happens to be the real sister of the accused Amit with whom the girl has eloped; victim is happens to be the friend of petitioner and on account of that she has falsely been implicated in the present case; much reliance has been placed upon paragraph nos. 4 to 7 to the affidavit accompanying the writ petition.
Sri Sudhakar Shukla, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of first informant and has informed the Court that Chandrapal, who is the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is also an accused in the present case and he is also named in the FIR.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties , we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.5.2018 Radhika
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the petitioner should be granted an interim direction against arrest pending police report submission.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Km. Gayatri (Minor)
State Of U.P.
And 3 Others
Vipin Sinha
Mahboob Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
