Disposed

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

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2019CRLP/40/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash the FIR charged under IPC and POCSO sections. Instead, it directed that the petitioner not be arrested until the police submit the report under Section 173 CrPC, while mandating investigation completion within three months.

What did the court decide?

Exemption from arrest until police report under Section 173 CrPC is submitted; investigation to be completed within three months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 40 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ashiq And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Exemption Application is allowed.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

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. 614 of 2018 u/s 376D, 452,323,504,506,147 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act PS Gangoh District Saharanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; even if the entire prosecution story as set up in the FIR is believed to be true, the allegation of rape has not been made against the present petitioners who have been arrayed as accused nos.2,3 and 4; specific role has been assigned to accused nos.1 and 5 i.e. Shahjad and Saleem who are not party in the present writ petition; the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case solely on account of some dispute with regard to passage; 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 petitioner(s) 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties 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.

¶11

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(s) shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner(s) shall participate and cooperate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.1.2019 SP

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashiq 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Km. Aashu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Bal Chandra Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Sunil Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Ramvilas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others