Dismissed

Muskan Gautam (in Habc 18798 of 2021) Thru. Her Father Sri Ram Babu v. Station House Officer,P.S. Sarojaninagar,Lucknow and 6 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023/3/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous review application filed by Muskan Gautam, holding that the delay was condoned and no error appeared on the face of the record regarding her coerced statement in the underlying habeas corpus matter.

What did the court decide?

Application for review and condonation of delay dismissed.

Muskan Gautam (in Habc 18798 of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45861

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 3 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Muskan Gautam (In Habc 18798 Of 2021) Thru. Her Father Sri Ram Babu

¶5

Opposite Party :- Station House Officer,P.S. Sarojaninagar,Lucknow And 6 Others

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Raghave,Vipineshwar Upadhyay

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Order on Application for condonation of delay

¶9

Notices had earlier been issued to opposite parties 2 to 6 vide order dated 31.03.2023.

¶10

As per office report dated 02.05.2023, service upon said opposite parties could not be effected through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj since the house was found locked. The report also states that neighbours reported that occupants of the house do not reside there permanently and keep visiting. As such notice upon opposite parties 2 to 6 is deemed sufficient in terms of Rules of this Court. No power has been filed on behalf of the said opposite parties.

¶11

Cause shown in affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is found sufficient and as such delay in filing review application is condoned.

¶12

Order in memo of Review Application

¶13

Application for review of order dated 21.09.2021 passed in Habeas Corpus Petition No.18798 of 2021 has been filed. Delay in filing the application has already been condoned.

¶14

Learned counsel for applicant submits that in aforesaid Habeas Corpus Petition, the detenu who is applicant in the present review application was produced before this Court on 21.09.2021. The order passed on the said date indicates that the

¶15

detenu is willingly residing with opposite party no.4, Jacob Joseph alias Tinku. It was on the basis of such a statement that the petition was dismissed.

¶16

It has been submitted that although there is no denial of the statement made by alleged detenu before the court on 21.09.2021 but it submitted that the said statement was made under coercion exercised by opposite party no.4 upon the detenu who is applicant herein and it was only on account of said coercion that the detenu felt threatened enough to make the statement as recorded in its order dated 21.09.2021.

¶17

It has also been submitted that after escaping from the clutches of opposite party no.4, the detenu/applicant filed a first information report bearing no.0019 dated 09.02.2022 under Section 376, 506, 328 I.P.C. registered in P.S. Bijnore, Lucknow but aforesaid statement as recorded by this Court is posing a hindrance in proper investigation of the complaint against opposite party no.4.

¶18

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the statement as recorded of the alleged detenu/ applicant in order dated 21.09.2021 has not been denied by her even in review application. It has only been submitted that the statement was made under duress and coercion. The said contradiction in stand by the detenu would not amount to an error apparent on the face of record due to which there is no occasion to review order dated 21.09.2021.

¶19

Apprehension of learned counsel for applicant that the said statement would pose a hindrance in proper investigation in pursuance to F.I.R. lodged by the detenu, in considered opinion of this Court, would not be entertainable in view of the specific stand taken by detenu that the said statement before this Court

¶20

was made under duress and coercion exercised by opposite party no.4 and as such it is for the police authorities to properly investigate into the allegations made in the F.I.R. lodged by the detenu/applicant also with regard to duress and coercion exercised upon applicant with regard to making of statement as recorded vide order dated 21.09.2021.

¶21

Obviously, in case the police comes to a conclusion that the statement as recorded before this Court on 21.09.2021 was made under coercion, it would obviously not have any evidentiary value in subsequent proceedings. As such the apprehension of learned counsel for detenu/applicant appears to be misplaced since police report is required to be filed in accordance with law and in terms of provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

Considering aforesaid and finding no error apparent on the face of record of review application, the same being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶23

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 kvg/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Muskan Gautam (in Habc 18798 of 2021) Thru. Her Father Sri Ram Babu v. Station House Officer,P.S. Sarojaninagar,Lucknow and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muskan Gautam (in Habc 18798 of 2021) Thru. Her Father Sri Ram Babu v. Station House Officer,P.S. Sarojaninagar,Lucknow and 6 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

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Manager Vs State of U.P. Thru. Spl. Secy. Institutional Finance and Ors.

Jageshwar Vs State of U.P. Thru Collector Rae Bareli and 2 Others

Saddam Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Bilgram Dist. Hardoi and 2 Others

Hanuman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate, Raebareli and 7 Others

Rahetunnisha @ Seema Siddiqui Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Lucknow and 2 Others

Uma Shanker Vs Upper Civil Judge (Junior Division) Room NO-17 Pratapgarh and 2 Others