The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR for offences under Sections 376, 342, 392, 511 IPC and 506 IPC instead of granting relief, directing investigation cooperation and supervision.
FIR not quashed; directions issued for investigation cooperation and monitoring.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 155 of 2019
Petitioner :- Swami Shree Yogi Satyam And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,V.P. Srivastava (Sr. Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A., Krishnaji Khare, Raj Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi and Sri V.P. Srivastava,learned senior Advocates assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar' assisted by Sri Krishnaji Khare learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Sri Vinod Kant learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Sri Neeraj Kant Verma learned A. G. A. for the State.
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. 894 of 2018 under Sections 376, 342, 392, 511, 506 IPC PS Colonelganj District Allahabad.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the first information report is absolutely vague and ambiguous, it does not disclose the place and time of occurrence; as per the own case of the victim she has been sexually exploited by the petitioner no.1 continuously for a period of last more than 10-12 years as is evident from page no.36 of the writ petition as per the statement given before the doctor; if what has been alleged by the victim in the first information report or in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is correct, then heavy burden lies on the victim to explain as to why she has kept mum even though she had ample opportunity to approach any of the dignitaries who have been appearing and participating in various functions which were organised by the Ashram; as per the medical evidence the age of the victim is above 25 years and below 40 years; much reliance has been placed on the averments made in paragraph nos.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the writ petition; there is a dispute with regard to the share in the property of the Ashram or Truest whatever it is, which is being managed by the petitioners; it has been further submitted that absolutely vague allegations have been made against the petitioner no.1 who happens to be the father of the victim and as far as other petitioners are concerned, without there, being any evidence to substantiate those allegations and thus it has been prayed that since the petitioners are willing to participate and cooperate in the investigation they may not be arrested at this stage until and unless the police concludes the investigation and submit the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
Sri M.D.Singh "Shekhar", learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri
Krishnaji Khare, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has strongly opposed the writ petition with the contention that the petitioner no.1 happens to be father of the victim; serious allegations have been made against the father by his own daughter; the petitioner no.1 has a criminal history of 30 cases, however, he does not dispute the fact that in most of the cases final report has been submitted; Sri Shekhar submits that in case any indulgence is given to petitioner no.1 there is likelihood that he would not participate and cooperate in the investigation or try to influence the investigation.
Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Neeraj Kant Verma has also opposed the writ petition with the similar contention.
However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and fundamental contention that as the prosecution case as set up by the prosecution appears to be doubtful and the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;
a) That the petitioners will participate and cooperate in the investigation and will extend all support to the investigating agency,
b) it is further directed that none of the petitioners will leave the city of Allahabad without informing the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station in time and in case there is any change in the address the same shall also be informed to the concerned police station,
c) the Investigating Officer will conduct fair and proper investigation in accordance with law and submit the police report as required under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order,
d) Inspector General of Police Zone/Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad are directed to personally monitor the investigation.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.1.2019 R./
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR is vague and ambiguous requiring quashing due to failure to disclose place and time of occurrence and the age discrepancy of the victim.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Swami Shree Yogi Satyam And 5 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Vipin Sinha
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
