Disposed

Seeta Pal and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2020CRLP/1753/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging enticement, the court held that age determination required evidence recording. The court continued the investigation but directed non-arrest of co-accused pending the police report and ordered immediate release of the victim from Nari Niketan.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to continue; arrest of petitioners 2-6 stayed pending police report; victim Seeta Pal directed to be set at liberty.

Seeta Pal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1753 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Seeta Pal And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jeetendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ambreesh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondent no.1 & 2; Sri Ambreesh Kumar for respondent no.3.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 28.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 601 of 2019 at P.S. Phaphund, District Auraiya, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned first information report, which has been lodged by Ashok Kumar, brother of the victim, is that the victim Seeta Pal, who is aged 16 year, has been enticed away by the accused.

¶8

This petition has been filed by the victim along with the accused claiming that the victim is an adult as her recorded date of birth is 06.07.1999 and that she has voluntarily entered into relationship with the petitioner no.2 (Sarman Pal) and therefore, no offence has been committed.

¶9

A counter affidavit was filed annexing therewith the high school marksheet of the victim which discloses her date of birth as 13.06.2002.

¶10

The counsel for the petitioner had urged that there is a different date of birth recorded in another educational certificate which discloses the date of birth of the victim as 06.07.1999 and therefore, the age of the victim needs determination as per law.

¶11

On 11.02.2020, the Court, after noticing the submission, had required the learned A.G.A. to verify the genuineness/ correctness of the marksheet of the high school examination.

¶12

The learned A.G.A. has informed the Court that pursuant to the order dated 11.02.2020 an affidavit of compliance has been filed in the registry on 17th March, 2020. A copy of the compliance affidavit has been passed on to the Court during the course of arguments.

¶13

From the compliance affidavit, it appears that the high school certificate, depicting the date of birth of the victim as 13.06.2002, was verified and was found in order.

¶14

In respect of the other date of birth, in paragraph 5 of the compliance affidavit, it is stated that the Principal of Guljari Lal Balika Inter College, Phaphund, Auraiya, where the petitioner no.1 allegedly studied in class- VI and VII, was contacted. He disclosed in his statement that after passing out class 7, the victim was absent in class 8 and no transfer certificate was obtained by her. It is stated that the transfer certificate was obtained from District Inspector of Schools, Auraiya.

¶15

As it appears that different dates of birth of the victim are reflected by her educational record, her age would have to be determined in accordance with law by recording evidence. Hence, it would not be appropriate for us to express any opinion as regards the age of the victim at this stage and in these summary proceedings.

¶16

As the impugned first information report alleges that the victim is aged 16 years and she has been enticed away by the accused, the investigation would have to be brought to its logical conclusion therefore the prayer to quash the first investigation report cannot be accepted.

¶17

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶18

we deem it appropriate to dispose off the petition by providing that investigation of the case shall continue and brought to its logical conclusion but the petitioners 2 to 6 shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., provided they co-operate in the investigation.

¶19

As by now, even by the date of birth recorded in the high school certificate, the victim has attained the age of majority, her incarceration in Nari Niketan, Allahabad, pursuant to the order dated 11.02.2020, would no longer be justified. We, therefore, direct the Superintendent/In charge Nari Niketan, Allahabad to set the victim (petitioner no.1- Seeta Pal) at liberty forthwith.

¶20

Let a copy of this order be provided to the learned Government Advocate for information and compliance within 48 hours.

¶21

Order Date :- 25.8.2020/Chandan

Seeta Pal and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seeta Pal and 5 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

Saira and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay R-Mishra @ Babaloo Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Shekh Afroz and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jay Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kushum Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others