Dismissed

Dharmendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2018CRLP/12163/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the writ petition as far as the first petitioner was concerned due to lack of case out, but its prayer for bail was deferred for expeditious consideration if the father-in-law and mother-in-law surrender and apply for bail. The court relied on the victim's statement contradicting the petitioner's claim of absolving all criminal liability.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed against first petitioner; bail to be considered if remaining petitioners surrender and apply.

Dharmendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12163 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dharmendra And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.

¶5

A supplementary affidavit filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

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. 511 of 2017, under Section- 363, 376 IPC and under Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.- Asothar, districtFatehpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioner(s); apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner(s) in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F. I. R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶9

However, learned AGA has produced before this Court today case diary of the present case along with which statement of the girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been annexed.

¶10

We have perused the said statement.

¶11

We have perused the FIR and from perusal of the allegations as made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. We have also perused the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516. The said decision has also been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3700 .

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned FIR and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases and also keeping in view of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of any indulgence in the present writ petition inasmuch as it pertains to petitioner no. 1 is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition, as far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, is

¶14

dismissed.

¶15

However, in case petitioner nos. 2 and 3, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.5.2018 Kuldeep

Dharmendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Viany Kumar Alias Yogesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aneeta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rizwana Parveen @ Rajni and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd Waseek and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajai Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others