Dismissed

Aman Rabbani @ Rayyan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2024CRLP/22303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the legality of an FIR under BNS and POCSO via a writ petition. The High Court held that prima facie an offence was disclosed and dismissed the quashing plea as factual disputes existed, but directed surrender for bail consideration within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR refused; Petitioner directed to appear for bail consideration within 60 days.

Aman Rabbani @ Rayyan vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:191372-DB

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22303 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Aman Rabbani @ Rayyan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.C.Srivastava,Subham Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 07.10.2024 lodged in Case Crime No. 292 of 2024, under Sections- 64, 137 (2), 115 (2) BNS & 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Nauchandi, District- Meerut.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no offence against the petitioner is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner involve factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶9

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under article 226 of Constitution of India. At this stage only prima facie case is to be

¶10

seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶11

The prayer for quashing the FIR of the aforesaid case is refused. 6. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail/anticipatory bail, his prayer for bail/anticipatory bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of. 8. However, in case, the petitioner does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶13

It is made clear that the petitioner will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.12.2024 Suraj Srivastav

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aman Rabbani @ Rayyan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Rabbani @ Rayyan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabra and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Vrindavan and 5 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

state of up vs Doctor alias Mubarak Hussain and 10 others

Brahm Prakash vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ankit Bhatt and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sohail @ Sohil and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others