Disposed

Padam Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2018CRLP/9988/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal writ petition was filed seeking quashing of an F.I.R. under IPC and POCSO. The High Court declined to quash the F.I.R. but directed that petitioners not be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed, while mandating cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction that petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and to cooperate with investigation.

Padam Yadav 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. - 9988 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Padam Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Solanki Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶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. 354 of 2018, under Section- 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.- Kalyanpur, districtKanpur Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1 and 2 are the parents of the Surjeet Yadav and petitioner no. 3 is elder brother of Surjeet. The contention is the Surjeet is adult and have solemnized marriage by their own sweet will without any threat, fear or coercion; 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 petitioners 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

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.

¶9

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and in case they receive any information about the whereabouts of the girl and boy, the said information will be shared with the police authorities and the investigating officer is directed to complete the investigation as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶10

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

¶11

Order Date :- 19.4.2018 Ujjawal

Padam Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padam Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Mohd. Ajmal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Mustafa Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Shahzad and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Imran Sheikh @ Arman and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sushmita Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others