The High Court refused to quash an F.I.R. under Section 366 I.P.C. but imposed conditions halting arrest for up to two months until the minor/major status of the victim is ascertained and her statement recorded.
Prayer for quashing refused; arrest of accused stayed for two months subject to victim's statement and age proof.
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. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7692 of 2019
Petitioner :- Lalita @ Shabana And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jayprakash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Pandey,Sushil Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 10.03.2019 in Case Crime No.184 of 2019, under Section-366 I.P.C., P.S.- Baraut, District-Baghpat.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
From the perusal of the F.I.R. and the record, it appears that on the basis of allegation made therein, the prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no justifiable scope of interfering in the F.I.R. or the investigation of this case. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. is refused.
However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the kidnapped girl may be directed to be produced before the court concerned to ensure fair investigation, it is directed that in case the allegedly kidnapped girl Smt. Lalita @ Shabana appears or is produced before the court of learned C.J.M., Baghpat within 20 days from today and moves an application for her medical examination and recording her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate concerned shall fix a date for the same purpose. On that date, the first informant & Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned shall be summoned. Thereafter such girl shall be produced before C.M.O. concerned by the concerned police officer for her medical examination as early as possible, preferably not later than within further twenty days. Her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shall also be recorded. Thereafter, she shall be produced before C.J.M concerned for recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. on the application filed by the I.O./Officer-incharge of the police station concerned. Till two months from today or till recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, no coercive step like arrest shall be taken against the accused and in case of default and non compliance of the Court's direction by the petitioners, it shall be open to the police authority concerned to arrest the accused. In case in view of the radiological report and the other educational certificates or birth certificates if any, which the I.O. may collect during investigation regarding the proof of age, the girl is found to be major and if her statements are found favourable to the accused-petitioners, the accused shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided that the accused shall co-operate with the investigation. In case the alleged kidnapped girl is found to be minor or if she is found major but supports the prosecution version, it shall be open to the police authority to arrest the accused and proceed further in accordance with law. In case the petitioners approach the S.S.P. concerned to provide the security for the aforementioned purpose of complying with Court's
direction, the same shall be provided to them.
It is further directed that issue of custody of the alleged kidnapped girl may also be decided by the C.J.M. concerned in accordance with law.
With the above direction this petition is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 28.3.2019 M. Kumar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. under Section 366 I.P.C. be quashed or the investigation be regulated to ensure fair examination of the victim.
Whether coercive steps like arrest of the accused are permissible before the recording of the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Lalita @ Shabana And Another
State Of U.P.
Karuna Nand Bajpayee
Ifaqat Ali Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
