Dismissed

Neelam and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 May 2023CRLP/19170/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two criminal miscellaneous writ petitions filed against FIRs. Due to the petitioner's non-appearance and failure to file a rejoinder affidavit, the Court relied on the informant's affidavit establishing the victim as a minor (DOB 05.05.2007), holding the allegations to be a cognizable offence and refusing to quash the FIR.

What did the court decide?

No relief was granted; the writ petitions were dismissed and the FIR was upheld.

Neelam and Another Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107225-DB

¶2

Court No. - 46

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19170 of 2022 Petitioner :- Neelam And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghan Shyam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Dubey

¶4

connect with

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18256 of 2022 Petitioner :- Vishnu And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghan Shyam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Dubey

¶6

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶7

Case called out in the revised. None has appeared to press the writ petition.

¶8

Learned counsel for the first informant is present.

¶9

On 17.01.2023, the following order had been passed -

¶10

" Learned counsel for the petitioner has granted a week's time to file cogent documentary evidence to show that petitioner No. 1 who is major.

¶11

Today, when the case is taken up, he has stated that he has not procured any documentary evidence in this regard.

¶12

Learned counsel for the informant prays for and is granted three days' time to file an affidavit annexing the documentary evidence.

¶13

Put up this case after three days as fresh."

¶14

Subsequently, a counter affidavit was filed by counsel for the first informant annexing thereto an admit card wherein the date of birth of the victim is recorded as 05.05.2007. She is therefore, a minor.

¶15

On 16.02.2023, after this counter affidavit has been filed, learned counsel for the petitioner has been directed to file a rejoinder affidavit. The said order reads as follows-

¶16

"Put up this matter as fresh on 20.02.2023 at 10 a.m.

¶17

In the meantime, rejoinder affidavit must necessarily be filed by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶18

It is made clear that no further time in this regard shall be granted."

¶19

Today, on the matter being called out in the revised list as noticed above, none has appeared for the petitioner.

¶20

Under the circumstances, this Court has no option but to rely upon the document annexed along with the counter affidavit as no rejoinder affidavit has been filed controverting it.

¶21

Accordingly and since the victim is minor, the allegations in the first information report clearly constitute a cognizable offence. The first information report, therefore, cannot be quashed.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.5.2023 RKM

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neelam and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajeet Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Rani Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shailesh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunil Verma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Bijendra Alias Uttam Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others