Dismissed¶12

Rudal and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2020CRLP/8328/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; stay of arrest; cognizable offence ex-facie discernible from FIR; no interference with investigation; Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of minor victim; sections 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC; Section 16/17 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO); case crime no. 285 of 2019; police station Nichlaul, District Maharajganj; Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.; Satya Pal v. State of U.P.; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On a perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out; hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners. ¶11

Rudal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8328 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Rudal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Kumari Meena, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 17.07.2019 registered as case crime no. 285 of 2019, under sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 16/17 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, police station Nichlaul, District Maharajganj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the victim is a minor girl and she in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure-3) has not made any allegation against the petitioners for committing rape on her, hence the same is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. and submitted that the impugned F.I.R. disclose cognizable offence against the petitioners. Moreover, as per the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure-3), there is an allegation against the co-accused persons for selling the victim girl to the co-accused, Vishal Madheshiya who committed rape on her.

¶9

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.

¶10

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that

¶11

no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners.

¶12

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.8.2020 SA

¶14

(Ajit Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Rudal and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudal 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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reema Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surekha Yadav and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Deepa Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashish Singraur Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Changez Rana Vs State of U P and 2 Others

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