Partly allowed

Hariom and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jun 2020CRLP/6144/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging abduction and sexual exploitation. The court rejected the quashing prayer for the petitioner Hariom but granted interim protection against arrest for his three relatives, subject to cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for Hariom (FIR not quashed). Ground for protection against arrest granted for Smt. Geeta Devi, Smt. Vinita, and Satyaveer Singh, subject to cooperation with investigation.

Hariom and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6144 of 2020 Petitioner :- Hariom And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Bratendra Singh,Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶3

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Hariom, Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Jugendra Singh, Smt. Vinita W/o Satyaveer Singh, and Satyaveer Singh with a prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the first information report registered as case crime no. 19 of 2020, under sections 342, 376, 323, 506, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Pisawa, District Aligarh.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been clearly stated that she was in live-in relationship with Hariom and even today she is residing with him. In the counter affidavit filed by the informant, it is admitted that today she is residing with the petitioner no. 1 and it was a malicious prosecution wherein remotely related persons have been implicated, hence this petition with above prayer.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed with this contention that even in statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the contention of prosecutrix is same as was in First Information Report. It is a case of abduction/kidnapping under threat and thereafter sexual exploitation of a vulnerable lady by Hariom who happens to be a police constable.

¶6

Learned counsel for the informant has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that the prosecutrix is living with Hariom but such contention was made by Hariom for which this report was lodged.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the First Information Report, it is apparent that Hariom was the accused against whom there were all these allegations that he being in acquaintance, had abducted the prosectrix and kept her in his captivity for about two months wherein physical and sexual exploitation was made by him for which investigation is in process and there is no ground for any indulgence.

¶8

So far as, Smt. Geeta Devi, Smt. vinita and Satyaveer Singh are concerned, allegations levelled against them are under investigation and relief for quashing First Information Report is not made out but, ground for grant of protection against arrest till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. is made out.

¶9

Accordingly, this writ petition is being finally disposed of with above direction for Smt. Geeta Devi, Smt. Vinita and Satyaveer Singh, provided that they shall cooperate with investigation and do not interfere with the evidence.

¶10

Order Date :- 23.6.2020

¶11

Deepak/

Hariom and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom and 3 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

Mohd. Daud and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Nath and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Noor Alam @ Guddu and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

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

Vikesh Thakur Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arjun Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others