Allowed

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

Allahabad HC21 May 2018CRLP/1715/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 363, 366, and 506 IPC. Citing precedent and noting the victim's age and prior habeas corpus relief, the court held that pending proceedings would serve no purpose and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR registered as Case Crime No. 8 of 2018 u/s 363, 366, 506 IPC was quashed.

Rizwana Parveen @ Rajni and Another Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1715 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rizwana Parveen @ Rajni And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr Zafar Abbas Counsel for Respondent :- GA

¶4

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

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR registered as Case Crime No. 8 of 2018 u/s 363, 366, 506 IPC PS Katghar District Moradabad.

¶7

Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the order dated 25.1.2018 passed by another Bench of this Court in the present case. The said order is being reproduced herein below:-

¶8

"Heard Sri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

¶10

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 3.

¶11

Each of the respondent is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit.

¶12

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may also be filed within two weeks thereafter. List after six weeks.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2 for enticing away the petitioner no.1. The said FIR was challenged by the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16688 of 2016. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 20.7.2016. In pursuance of the said order, the victim appeared before the C.J.M. concerned and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded and she was also medically examined by the C.M.O in which she was found to be 17 years of age and petitioner no.2 was arrested and thereafter he was granted bail on 2.1.2017 by learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45236 of 2016. The present FIR has again been lodged by the respondent no.3 and in the meanwhile custody of the girl was given to her mother. Thereafter again she left her house and started living with petitioner no.2. The victim is at the verge of attaining majority.

¶14

Prima facie arguments advanced appear to have some substance and require consideration by this court as such pursuant to impugned F.I.R. dated 5.1.2018, registered as Case Crime No.8 of 2018, u/s 363, 366, 506 IPC, P.S. Katghar, district Moradabad, no coercive action be taken

¶15

against the petitioners.

¶16

It is made clear that if the petitioners do not take steps to serve notice to respondent no.3 within two weeks' from today, the interim protection granted above shall automatically vacated and this petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to any Bench of this Court."

¶17

We have perused the said order which shows that statement of the girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and she was medically examined in which she was found 17 years of age. The Court has also been informed that a habeas corpus writ petition no. 3159 of 2018 was filed before this Court which was allowed on 17.5.2018 and the girl was released in favour of the husband (Sunil Saini). Further contention is that girl is 17 years of age and she has also given birth to a child on 21.11.2017 while detaining in Nari Niketan itself.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court (Lucknow Bench) rendered in the cases of Vishal Jaiswal And Another v. State of U.P. and Others passed on 26.8.2016 in Misc. Bench No. 10724 of 2016 and Shaheen Parveen And Another vs. State of U.P. and Orthrs passed in writ petition no. 3519 (M/B) of 2015 and by the Apex Court in the cases of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2011 (6) SCC 396 (2014) and Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India passed in writ petition (civil) no. 231 of 2010 and Suhani & Another v. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in civil appeal no. 4532 of 2018 decided on 26.04.2018, no purpose would be served in keeping the present case pending before this Court. Accordingly the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned FIR registered as aforesaid case crime is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow.

¶19

Order Date :- 21.5.2018 SP

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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