Dismissed

Shalini Tripathi @ Deepika Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2020CRLP/6779/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the plea seeking a writ of mandamus for non-arrest and quashing of an FIR registered under Section 363, 366A IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, noting that an alternate remedy of anticipating bail exists.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for non-arrest and quashing of the FIR is dismissed.

Shalini Tripathi @ Deepika Tripathi and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6779 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Shalini Tripathi @ Deepika Tripathi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Pratap Singh,Rajneesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pankaj Dwivedi,Sanjay Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, not to arrest the petitioners, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 06.02.2020 registered as Case Crime No.18 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366A IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police StationShivkuti, District-Prayagraj.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR has been lodged on false / vexatious / mischievous allegations, no offences are made out, FIR be quashed.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the submission.

¶10

The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation as by insertion of notification No.1058/79-V-1-19-1 (Ka)-20-2018 dated 6th June 2019, an alternate remedy is available to the petitioners to seek for an anticipatory bail/bail as they may be advised.

¶11

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶12

It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised which are left open for the petitioners to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.

¶13

The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card).

¶14

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.11.2020 Ashutosh

Shalini Tripathi @ Deepika Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalini Tripathi @ Deepika Tripathi and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meera Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asif and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

K.N. Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Zaki and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saeed Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarfaraj Alam and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others