Disposed

Sajid v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC8 May 2018CRLP/58/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 366 IPC. After noting the victim is an adult, the Court directed no coercive action pending the police report while ensuring fair investigation. The petition was finally disposed with liberty to recall.

What did the court decide?

Directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. within three months.

Sajid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 58 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sajid Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Rai

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶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.856 of 2017, under Section 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Massorie, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

In view of the office report dated 07.05.2018 service of notice upon respondent no. 4 is deemed to be sufficient.

¶8

Perusal of the interim order dated 04.01.2018, which shows that the victim Rukaiya admittedly is a major girl aged about 19 years. She at present moment is living with her uncle.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013-Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.P. , and in view of the statement made by the girl/ victim herself before this Court, no purpose would be served in keeping the present matter pending any further before this Court. Accordingly, the present writ petition is being disposed off finally with the following directions, at this stage itself:-

¶10

(a) Till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., no coercive action shall be taken or initiated against the petitioner, however they shall participate and cooperate with the investigation;

¶11

(b) Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the concerned SSP/SP through the office of Government Advocate of this Court, who shall personally look into the matter and thereafter shall ensure that fair investigation is done in accordance with law without any whims, caprice or personal notion of morality;

¶12

(c) The police authorities are directed to investigate the matter fairly, expeditiously and submit the report as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in accordance with law preferable within a period of three months from today 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 26.08.2016 in Misc. Bench No.10724 of 2016 and Shaheen Parveen And Another vs. State of U.P. and Others 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.

¶13

(d) Liberty is also given to the respondents that if anyone of them has any grievance with this order, he/she may move recall application in the present proceedings itself;

¶14

(e) It is also being made clear that if the investigation has been completed and the police has already submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the present order will not be given effect to.

¶15

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed off finally.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.5.2018 Ujjawal

Sajid v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat @ Bhuvnesh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Yogendra Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Smt. Shikha and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Shaila Alias Shahnila and Another Vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary Dept. of Home Affairs U.P. Shashan Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Huma and 02 Others Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Ranglal Prajapati and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others