Partly allowed

Seema and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2019CRLP/5066/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging enticement under Section 366 IPC. The high court directed the production of the petitioner before the Investigating Officer for a statement and reserved the question of disposal pending investigation reports.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to produce before Investigating Officer by 29.04.2019 for statement; interim protection continued pending report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Seema and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5066 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Seema And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶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 respondents 1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the impugned First Information Report dated 17.02.2019, registered as Case Crime No.0062 of 2019, under Section 366 I.P.C, Police Station Raya, District Mathura.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned F.I.R, which has been lodged by the father of the victim-Seema, is that Seema, aged about 20 years, has been enticed away by the accused Shriniwas (petitioner no.2).

¶8

The victim-Seema and the accused Shriniwas has jointly filed this petition by claiming that both of them are adult and they have voluntarily entered into relationship with each other, and, therefore, no offence has been committed.

¶9

On 25.2.2019, after noticing the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court had passed the following order : -

¶10

"The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that admittedly the victim Seema is an adult and that she has voluntarily entered into relationship with the petitioner no.2 (accused) and, therefore, no offence has been committed.

¶11

Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the victim Seema before us. She has affirmed the aforesaid contentions.

¶12

The matter requires consideration after service of notice upon the third respondent.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶14

Let notice be issued to respondent no.3 fixing 11.04.2019.

¶15

By the next date of listing, the respondents shall file their respective

¶16

counter affidavits.

¶17

List this case on 11.04.2019 on which date, the petitioner no.1 as well as respondent no.3 shall again be personally present before the Court.

¶18

Till the next date of listing or till submission of the police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in Case Crime No.0062 of 2019, under Section 366 IPC, P.S. Raya, District Mathura.

¶19

It is made clear that this court has not stayed the investigation."

¶20

Pursuant to the above order, the office has submitted a report that notice was issued to the respondent no.3, fixing 11.4.2019, but neither undelivered cover nor acknowledgement of the notice sent by registered post has been received back. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3.

¶21

The learned A.G.A has filed a short counter affidavit, in which, it is stated that the informant has supported the prosecution case in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C but the investigation could not be completed.

¶22

Under the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the petitioner no.1 shall be produced before the Investigating Officer by or before 29.04.2019. Upon her appearance, her statement would be recorded by the Investigating Officer and thereafter she shall be produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, for recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Depending on her statement, the police shall submit report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. In case the petitioner no.1 is not produced by the date fixed as above, the interim protection granted earlier shall stand discharged. Otherwise, till submission of report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., the interim protection granted earlier shall continue.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶24

Order Date :- 11.4.2019 m.a.

Seema and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema and Another 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

Ashok Goyal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bharat and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Savitri Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Muskan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhanu Pratap Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others