Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 May 2019CRLP/13472/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition to quash an FIR under POCSO and IPC, the Court held that investigation must proceed due to cognizable offenses. The petitioners are directed not to be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided they cooperate.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners shall not be arrested till the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. provided they cooperate in the investigation.

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

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13472 of 2019 Petitioner :- Monu Kashyap And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Deo Ojha,Sachchida Nand Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

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

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶5

The instant petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. dated 22.4.2019 registered as case crime No. 205 of 2019 under Section 376, 120-B, 406, 356 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station- Mawan, District- Meerut.

¶6

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the allegations made in the first information report it appears that although the victim stated that sexual relationship was established on promise of job and marriage but the facts alleged suggest that the victim (informant) had developed it over a length of time with Raj Kashyap (son of petitioner no. 3). The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are brother and sister, respectively, of Raj Kashyap. It has been submitted that allegation of sexual assault is only against Raj Kashyap whereas rest of the family members have been implicated just to exert pressure upon the entire family members by alleging that they encouraged such physical relationship by promising job as well as marriage. It has been submitted that victim is an adult and whatever relationship she had developed with Raj Kashyap (non petitioner) was consensual.

¶7

Be that as it may, as the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences, the matter would have to be investigated and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.

¶8

However considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, keeping in mind that rape allegations are against Raj Kashyap (non petitioner), we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigation shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion but the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. provided they cooperate in the investigation.

¶9

O rder Date :- 17.5.2019 / A. Pt. Singh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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