Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2020CRLP/10420/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench dismissed the Crl. Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 147, 363, 120-B IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, holding that prima facie a cognizable offence is discernible from the allegations and no restriction prevented police investigation.

What did the court decide?

FIR registration and arrest not quashed; bail eligibility provided on token appearance within 30 days.

Seema and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10420 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Seema And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR registered as Case Crime No.148 of 2020, under Sections 147,363,120-B I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act Police Station Rabupura District Gautambudh Nagar with a further prayer, not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the first information report.

¶7

Brief facts as per version of the F.I.R. are that on 4.8.2020 at about 9 a.m. Neha daughter of the informant aged about 15 years was taken away by Suhail, Raees and Akram while she was coming back from the temple.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the victim is a major and was consenting with co-accused Suhail but after recovery under pressure of her family members she has falsely disclosed the names of the petitioners as companion of co-accused Suhail. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged on wholly false allegations against the petitioners hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim Neha has been recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has clearly stated that while she was coming back from the temple Raees, Nafees, Akram, Seema and Sohail took her in a vehicle to Bijnor. Akram dropped her on the way to Bijnor. She informed her sister on phone and the police then took her to her home.

¶10

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 that there can be no

¶11

interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.

¶12

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.

¶13

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶14

However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear or surrender before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.10.2020

¶16

o.k.

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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyanka Chaurasiya and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hari Shyam Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Malti Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalman Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kasturi Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nagma and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others