The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for non-arrest and quashing of FIR, holding that factual averments cannot be scrutinized in such proceedings and the petition lacked merit.
Writ petition for non-arrest and quashing of FIR dismissed.
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. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 252 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rahul Sharma @ Aaditya Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Rana Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Deepak Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by Rahul Sharma @ Aaditya Kumar Sharma, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, not to arrest the petitioner, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 26.11.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 469 of 2019 under Sections 354(A), 354(D), 506 IPC, 7/8 POCSO Act and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, P.S. Dhaulana, District Hapur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a teacher in S.S.N. Public School, has been falsely implicated by respondent no. 3 for ulterior motives. He submits that in fact, the daughter of respondent no. 3 namely Km. Sujata Gautam took admission in class VI on 11.7.2012 and completed her education upto class VIII on 31.3.2015, thereafter transfer certificate was issued to her on 1.4.2015 by S.S.N. Public School but at the time of her admission, the name of the last attended educational institute was kept blank as no result or any document of any prior institution was submitted at the time of her admission. He further submits that the respondent no. 3 has cooked up a false story and lodged the present first information report. He further submits that the petitioner never misbehaved with the victim and has not sexually harassed her.
To the contrary, learned AGA, on the other hand argued that the petitioner is named in the first information report, a specific role has been assigned to him and has been rightly charged under the sections, as per the allegations, as spelled out in the first information report. He further argued that even in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has attributed commission of immoral action by the petitioner. The present petitioner does not deserve any sympathy as he is involved in a serious matter.
After hearing the respective counsels and perusing the material on record, it is clear that in the first information report, there is a clear allegation against the petitioner for the offences alleged. The petitioner has also been alleged to have been involved in such acts many times whereby he has physically touched the victim. Even the petitioner had threatened the victim that he would throw acid on her if she did not agree to his demand. The matter is serious in nature where a school going girl has been continuously touched inappropriately by the petitioner and also there has been a threat by him to throw acid on her if she did not agree to his immoral demand. The present writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
The correctness of the averments as argued on behalf of the petitioner cannot be looked into by us in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.1.2020
AKK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing non-arrest in a criminal proceeding under Sections 354(A), 354(D), 506 IPC, 7/8 POCSO Act and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act.
Rahul Sharma @ Aaditya Kumar Sharma
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Pankaj Naqvi
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
