Partly allowed

Shanti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020CRLP/752/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the Hon'ble Court refused to quash the FIR under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act but directed the State to take no coercive action against petitioners until the charge sheet is submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided they cooperate in the investigation.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against petitioners till charge sheet submission under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., conditioned on cooperation in investigation.

Shanti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 752 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shanti Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha

¶3

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha for the complainant.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR dated 25.09.2019 in respect of Crime No. 306 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Kampierganj, District Gorakhpur.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Shanti Devi is sister of Vinod, the main accused and petitioner no. 2 Ramesh Sahani is husband of petitioner no. 1. Learned counsel submits that as per 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, her age is about 22 years whereas as per medical report and family register, she is above 18 years of age. He further submits that there is 15 days delay in lodging the FIR. Lastly, it has been argued that the main allegations are against co-accused Vinod and not against the petitioners.

¶7

On the other hand State counsel opposes the petition.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, we are not inclined to quash the criminal proceedings, therefore, prayer for quashing the same is refused.

¶9

However, we finally dispose of this petition with a direction to the State authorities that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of above stated crime number till the submission of charge sheet under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. before the court concerned.

¶10

It is made clear that this order would remain effective till the petitioners cooperate in the investigation. Order Date :- 4.2.2020/SK

Shanti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajeej Khan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Chandrapal and 3 Ors.

Mayank Singhal Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Smt. Reena and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanoj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yogendra Pratap Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others