In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, petitioners sought quashing of an FIR and directions against their arrest. The court examined if a cognizable offence was made out based on the FIR and affidavits. Finding that an offence was disclosed, the court dismissed the petition regarding the second petitioner.
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. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8324 of 2020
Petitioner :- Mamta Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rabindra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard Sri Rabindra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondent, Kumari Meena, learned A.G.A. for the State and impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioners and with further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 16.07.2020 registered as case crime no. 0253 of 2020, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., P.S. Mugal Sarai, District Chandauli.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 who is the victim of the case has eloped with the petitioner no. 2 and hence no offence under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. is made out and the present F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner no. 2 just for harassment. It has next been submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the FIR no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating the petitioners' complicity in the commission of the alleged offence qua the petitioner no. 1 hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the private respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. and submitted that as per the impugned F.I.R., the victim is a minor girl aged about 16 years and she has been recovered by the police and has been sent to Nari Niketan.
Per contra learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that the impugned F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned FIR as well as the other material brought on record, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the impugned
F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner no. 2.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed qua petitioner no. 2.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/ Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 27.8.2020 SA
(Ajit Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. is liable to be quashed and the petitioner be granted protection from arrest.
Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence sufficient to sustain the proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mamta Kumari And Another
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
