Disposed

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

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2019CRLP/136/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR implicating the petitioner in sex offenses, the court declined to quash but directed non-arrest of the petitioner until the police submit its report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C..

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed not to be arrested till police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted; petitioner to cooperate with investigation; police to complete investigation early.

Ramvilas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 136 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ramvilas Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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.186 of 2018, under Sections 323, 342, 354, 376, 506/34 I.P.C. and Section 4/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Mushanagar, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioner; petitioner has been implicated on the basis of general allegation; it is submitted that though the petitioner has been named in the first information report but the first information report has been lodged after 24 days of the incident; further contention is that as far as the main accused Jitendra is concerned he has already been arrested and is in jail; further contention is that the petitioner happens to be the Maternal Uncle of the said accused, Jitendra and has been falsely implicated on account of the fact that he is relative of the accused, Jitendra; even otherwise there is no allegation of rape against the accused; 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

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

After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present 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.

¶10

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 petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., however, petitioner shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible.

¶11

Order Date :- 7.1.2019 R./

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramvilas 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

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

Bhupesh @ Sonu and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Fatima Bi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sunil Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Swami Shree Yogi Satyam and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonu @ Krishna and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others