Disposed

Diskha Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 02 Others

Allahabad HC29 May 2018CRLP/8989/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. but directed that the petitioners not be arrested pending the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., with an investigation deadline of three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction that petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; investigation to be completed within three months.

Diskha Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8989 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Diskha Sharma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ankit Gaur,R.B. Singh,Tarun Gaur

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s), learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ankit Gaur and Sri Tarun Gaur learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶6

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.179 of 2018 , under Section- 363, 366 IPC P.S.- Bahjoi district Bheem Nagar now Sambhal.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainantrespondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; entire family members have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3 it has been mentioned that the girl is minor, her date of birth as per high school marksheet is 11.5.2002, even as per Aadhar Card her date of birth is 11.5.2002 and she is 16 years of age. In this view of the matter, no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending before this Court as the age of the girl is also subject matter of investigation.

¶10

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.

¶11

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.P. passed in criminal appeal no.

¶12

1142/2013 decided on 2.8.2013, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner(s) shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner(s) shall participate and cooperate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 29.5.2018 SP

Diskha Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 02 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diskha Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 02 Others

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

Sangeeta Agrawal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amvika Prasad Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Anjali Kuamri and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

saroj and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Sushmi Kumari and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rekha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others