Partly allowed

Vishwajeet Alias Rantu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2019CRLP/33263/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 363, 366, 376, 507 IPC regarding abduction and sexual assault. Court rejected quashing prayer for primary accused due to FIR facts but directed non-arrest of mother and sister pending police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash FIR dismissed; Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 not to be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Petitioner nos. 1 and 4 dismissed with liberty to apply for ba

Vishwajeet Alias Rantu and 3 Others Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 33263 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vishwajeet Alias Rantu And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A..,Rampyare Lal Srivastava,Subash Chandra Srivastava.

¶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 respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Rampyare Lal Srivastava for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. dated 2.11.2018 registered as case crime No. 454 of 2018 under Section 323, 366, 376, 507 I.P.C., Police Station- Sarailakhsi, District- Mau.

¶7

The case has a chequered history. It appears that prior to the lodging of the impugned first information report, the father of the victim - Saroj, had lodged first information report at Police Station- Barahaj, District- Deoria, which was registered as case crime no. 356 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C., against two persons, namely, Vishwajeet and Bachchu Prasad. To challenge the first information report of case crime no. 356 of 2017 a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 25415 of 2017 was filed by the accused of that case along with the victim - Saroj.

¶8

In that petition, the victim claimed herself to be an adult with her date of birth 8.8.1996 as per High School certificate. It was claimed in that petition that the victim has married Vishwajeet and that no force was used upon her and that she had been voluntarily in the company of Vishwajeet. On the basis of said plea, on 17.11.2017 the Court had passed an order directing that the petitioners shall not be arrested in case crime no. 356 of 2017 for offence under Section 363, 366, 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Barahaj, District- Deoria.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has produced a photocopy of the statement of the victim, Saroj, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in case crime no. 356 of 2017. A perusal of the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in case crime no. 356 of 2017 would reveal that she had levelled allegations that she was forcibly taken and married to

¶10

Vishwajeet and her signature was forcibly taken on certain documents and that whatever she did was not a voluntarily act. She stated that somehow she managed to come back to her mother's home. She also stated that she wants to reside with her mother and father.

¶11

In the impugned first information report, which has been lodged on 2.11.2018 by the victim, the victim has stated that on 20.10.2018, in the evening, at about 7:00 p.m., she was called by the accused to Officers Colony. It is stated that when she came out of her house she was taken in a four wheeler vehicle and in that vehicle the accused - Vishwajeet, his mother Shakuntala and his sister Goldi were sitting and they all stuffed the mouth of the victim and took her to Lucknow. It is alleged in the first information report that there she was sexually assaulted not only by Vishwajeet but also by his friends. It has also been alleged that she was threatened.

¶12

On 20.11.2018, after considering the background facts of the case, the Court passed an interim thereby protecting the petitioners from any coercive action and counter affidavit was invited.

¶13

A short counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 3. In the counter, statement of the victim recorded, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in connection with case crime no. 454 of 2018, has been enclosed.

¶14

She has specifically stated in her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that she has not married Vishwajeet (Petitioner No. 1). She has also levelled allegations against Vishwajeet, Bholu, Ajeet and Shubham of sexual assault on her.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the background facts of the case suggests that the victim had got married to the petitioner no. 1 as she had earlier approached this Court for protection and, later, on account of parental pressure, she has taken a u-turn and has levelled allegations against the petitioners.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the victim was under immense pressure and threat and, therefore, her joining the other petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 25415 of 2017 was not a voluntarily act as she had deposed in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in connection with case crime no. 356 of 2017.

¶17

We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions

¶18

advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

¶19

No doubt background facts do suggest that there is possibility of consensual relationship between the victim and the petitioner no. 1 as a result of which the victim eloped with the petitioner no. 1 and approached this Court but that remains only a possibility. This Court cannot appreciate the evidence by holding a trial and record finding in that regard because that is in the exclusive domain of the trial court where a witness would have to depose and subject herself to cross examination. The first information report narrates that the victim has been abducted and thereafter sexually assaulted not only by the petitioner no. 1 but also by his friends as well, which she has affirmed in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Under the circumstances, prayer of the petitioner to quash the first information report dated 2.11.2018 cannot be accepted.

¶21

However considering that the petitioner no. 2, Shakuntala, is mother of the petitioner no. 1; and petitioner no. 3, Goldi, is sister of the petitioner no. 1, we deem it proper to dispose of this petition by providing that petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶22

In so far as petitioner no.1 and petitioner no. 4, namely, Vishwajeet and Bholu, are concerned their petition stands dismissed with liberty to them to apply for bail.

¶23

The petition stands disposed off .

¶24

O rder Date :- 24.4.2019

¶25

A. Pt. Singh

Vishwajeet Alias Rantu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwajeet Alias Rantu and 3 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

Shanu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Archana and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishn Bihari Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jagdish Prasad Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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