Disposed

Anshul Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2019CRLP/10548/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 33 rejected quashing of an FIR for stalking and POCSO offences, noting the victim's age is a factual issue. The court ordered investigation to continue but stayed arrest of the petitioner until the police report is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to continue; petitioner not to be arrested until submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

Anshul Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10548 of 2019

¶2

Petitioner :- Anshul Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Beerendra Singh Pal,Manoj Kumar Keshari

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the First Information Report dated 12.02.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0053 of 2019, under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, at Police Station - Dibiyapur, District Auraiya.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned first information report is that informant's daughter, who is minor, was being stalked by Anshul Kumar (the petitioner no. 1), who had also been threatening the victim through mobile calls and had also entered the house and misbehaved with her. It is alleged that when complaint was made, the other accused also joined and insulted as well as threatened the informant.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that daughter of the informant is not a minor but an adult and she had been in a relationship with the petitioner no. 1. They have exchanged love letters and, therefore, the allegations are nothing but false and made only to pressurise the petitioner no. 1.

¶9

Be that as it may, as it would have to be determined whether the daughter of the informant is a minor or an adult and the issues raised are pure question of facts, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.

¶10

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigation of the above case shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion but, subject to the petitioner's co-operation in the investigation, he shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC.

¶11

Order Date :- 22.4.2019/Md Faisal

Anshul Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshul Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunny Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jahid and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Madhu Sudan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Harendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sadakat and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raghu Raj @ Bhola @ Raghu Raj Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others