Disposed

Lekhraj Alias Pravin v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2018CRLP/1285/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an FIR regarding kidnapping, noting prima facie evidence existed. However, it directed the CJM to record medical and statement examinations under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. within 20 days. If the victim appears to be a minor or supports the FIR, arrest was permitted; otherwise, no coercive steps would be taken pending investigation, subject to police security.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashing refused; direction issued for recording examination/statement within 20 days and suspension of coercive steps pending same.

Lekhraj Alias Pravin Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1285 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Lekhraj Alias Pravin Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr Awadhesh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Awadhesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 27.10.2017 registered as case crime no.185 of 2017 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, Police Station Adhar, District Bulandshahr.

¶7

From the perusal of the FIR it appears that on the basis of allegation made therein the prima facie cognizanable offence is made out. There is no scope of interfering in the FIR. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.

¶8

However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the kidnapped girl shall be produced before the court concerned, it is directed that in case the alleged kidnapped girl Km Reena appears/produced before the court of learned C.J.M. concerned within 20 days from today and moves an application for her medical examination, recording her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate concerned shall fix a date for the same purpose, on that date the first informant & officer in charge of the police station concerned shall be summoned, she shall be produced before C.M.O. concerned by the concerned police officer for her medical examination thereafter she shall be produced before CJM concerned for recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. the same shall be recorded on the application filed by the I.O./Officer in charge of the police station concerned, till then no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners, in default of it, it shall be open to the police authority concerned to arrest the petitioners, if she is found major

¶9

and does not support the FIR version, the petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. In case the alleged kidnapped girl appears to be minor or if she is major but supports the prosecution version, it shall be open to the police authority to arrest the petitioners. In case the petitioners approach the S.S.P. concerned to provide the security for the above mentioned purpose, the same shall be provided to them.

¶10

It is further directed that issue of custody of the alleged kidnapped girl shall also be decided by the CJM concerned in accordance with law.

¶11

With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 7.2.2018 Pr/-

Lekhraj Alias Pravin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekhraj Alias Pravin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldip and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Omkar Vs State of U.P.

Dilshad Vs State of U.P.

Kulveer Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Umesh Kumar Bind and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bakhitiyar Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.