Remanded

Kamlesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 May 2019CRLP/13339/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR for sexual assault, the High Court declined to quash the FIR. Instead, it ordered that investigation proceed with petitioners' cooperation, restraining their arrest until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to continue; petitioners not to be arrested until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Kamlesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13339 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Kamlesh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Sonker 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 the State-respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 20.04.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 396 of 2019, under Sections 376-D, 120-B, 506 & 379 I.P.C., Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the prosecutrix; the petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law; the petitioner no. 3 is brother-in-law (Devar) and petitioner no. 4 is Nandoi of the prosecutrix.

¶8

According to the allegations they had come to the informant's house at a place where she was working as a teacher and there she was sexually assaulted by each of them by telling her that it is a family custom and her goods, etc. were stolen.

¶9

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that from the allegations made at the bottom of the F.I.R. it appears that the informant was annoyed with her husband gpt not having made disclosure about his earlier marriage which resulted in a divorce.

¶10

It has been submitted that the informant is a working lady and the F.I.R. has been lodged with delay of about 3 months and there is no medical report to support the allegations. It has been submitted that the allegations have been levelled only with a view to harass the entire family of the petitioner no. 1.

¶11

As correctness of the allegations are not to be tested ordinarily in the writ jurisdiction, therefore, on the grounds

¶12

taken, the prayer to quash the F.I.R. cannot be accepted. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case including that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband and the petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law of the victim and there is some delay in lodging the F.I.R., we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that investigation shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion, but, subject to petitioners' co-operation in the investigation, the petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid case.

¶13

O rder Date :- 17.5.2019 Vibha Singh

Kamlesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh and 3 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

Bibi Bano Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Rampal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Mangal Babu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Monu Kashyap and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asif Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others