The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under various sections of the IPC including sexual offences. The court held it was not a fit case for exercising discretionary jurisdiction to quash the FIR.
Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach other appropriate remedies.
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. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2513 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rakhi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hemant Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
The petitioner has preferred this petition for the quashing of the First Information Report dated 21.10.2019, registered as Case Crime No.886 of 2019, under Sections 366, 342, 323, 504, 506, 307, 376D IPC, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.
The allegations made in the FIR are of serious nature and constitute a cognizable offence. The petitioner has also been assigned specific role.
In view of the above, it is not a fit case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction so as to quash the FIR. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take other appropriate remedies as may be available to her, in law.
Order Date :- 11.2.2020 Mini
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered under Sections 366, 342, 323, 504, 506, 307, 376D IPC is a fit case for quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Rakhi
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Mithal
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
