Disposed

Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2020CRLP/5998/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition quashing the FIR. It declined to quash the FIR amidst age dispute and directed that investigation continue. Petitioners were granted protection from arrest until the police report submission under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided they co-operate.

What did the court decide?

No arrest for petitioners until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided they co-operate in the investigation.

Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Kumar Gupta and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5998 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Kumar Gupta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar Yadav,Pooja Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.A. for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the First Information Report dated 28.02.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0099/2020, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S.- Bhelupur, District- Varanasi.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned first information report is in respect of enticing away minor daughter of the informant who is stated to be aged 16 years 9 months.

¶8

The present petition has been filed by claiming that the victim is not a minor but an adult and she had left on her own and therefore no offence has been committed.

¶9

Pursuant to earlier order dated 06.08.2020, a supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing therewith the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶10

In her statement, the victim has stated that she is aged 18 years and that she left her house to attend the school on 24.02.2020 but instead of going to the school, she went to Durga Mandir where she voluntarily married Mahesh Gupta (petitioner no. 1).

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of the court to the medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi which indicates that as per medical examination the age of victim is between 19 and 20 years.

¶12

As in the impugned first information report, the age of the victim is specifically disclosed as 16 years 9 months and, admittedly, the victim is a student, the age of the victim

¶13

would have be to determined as per law and therefore it would not be appropriate for us to rely upon the medical report and quash the impugned first information report without proper determination of the age of the victim. Hence, the prayer to quash the first information report cannot be accepted, at this stage.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 26.8.2020 Sharad/-

Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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

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

Smt. Ayesha and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Sumit and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others