Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023CRLP/11993/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition under Article 226, the Allahabad High Court declined to quash an FIR registered under IPC 377 and POCSO Act alleging unnatural sex with a child. The court held that a cognizable offence was made out and recommended filing for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of the FIR is declined and rejected. Petitioners advised to file for anticipatory bail if so advised within seven days.

Nadeem and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155369-DB

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11993 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Nadeem And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Aslam Khan,Mohd. Mateen Khan

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohd. Aslam

¶6

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mohd. Aslam, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 14.07.2023 registered as Case Crime No.0456 of 2023 under sections 377 I.P.C. and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that incident occurred on 07.07.2023 and FIR was lodged on 14.07.2023 by the delay of seven day. Specific allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioners who were named in the FIR have committed unnatural sex with the young boy of 14 years.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and there is no occasion or reason to quash the FIR in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the prayer for quashing the FIR is hereby declined and accordingly rejected.

¶11

However, if so advised, the petitioners may file anticipatory bail before appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance within next seven days from today.

¶12

However, it is made clear that the Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and learned court concerned is expected to apply its robust judicial discretion in deciding the

¶13

anticipatory bail as early as possible.

¶14

With this observation, the present writ petition is hereby disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 Israr

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem 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

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

State of Up vs Vijay Singh s/o Sri Prem Singh

Arun Kumar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saurabh Gupta @ Tuntun and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amjad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Other