Rahul Srivastav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2024CRLP/283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an FIR under Sections 376, 506, 313 IPC lodged over four years after the alleged rape. Police inquiry reportedly found no evidence of rape or blackmailing. Court granted interim protection from arrest till the next day and directed cooperation in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners not to be arrested based on FIR No. 0004/2024 unless sufficient and cogent evidence available, till 17.01.2024; they must cooperate in investigation.

Rahul Srivastav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 283 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Rahul Srivastav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Zeeshan Lari,Siddhartha Sinha

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶6

Mr. Atul Verma, learned Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf opposite party no. 4 which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Atul Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4.

¶8

By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged FIR bearing case Crime No. 0004/2024, under Sections 376, 506, 313 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar Vistar, District Lucknow.

¶9

Mr. Atul Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 says that the statement of opposite party no. 4 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is to be recorded today.

¶10

However, learned counsel for the petitioners says that from the documents on record, especially application/letter dated 13.10.2023 written by the victim to the Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University where the petitioner no. 2 the wife of petitioner no. 1 is working as Associate Professor, it is evident that she has specifically that she was not in a relationship with petitioner no. 1, but, in the very next letter which according to him is dated 27.10.2023, though it is not mentioned in the copy annexed with the petition, addressed to the Director General of Police she has stated that she was in a relationship from 2019-2023 with the petitioner no. 1. However, the impugned FIR dated 06.01.2024 speaks of rape by the petitioner no. 1 sometime in 2019. The FIR itself has been lodged after more than four years. In this context allegations have been levelled against petitioner no. 2 i.e. wife of petitioner no. 1 of threats being extended by her along with her associates.

¶11

Learned AGA has informed us about an inquiry ordered by the Director General of Police through the Additional

¶12

Director General of Police, Women and Child Security Organization who in turn got an inquiry conducted into the allegations made in the letter addressed to the Director General of Police as referred hereinabove by a Superintendent of Police of the Organization and the conclusion of the said report, as informed by him, is that though no evidence of rape and blackmailing was found, however, there was evidence of relationship between petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 4. This report is dated 02.01.2024.

¶13

Considering the submission, only till tomorrow it is provided that the petitioners shall not be arrested based on the FIR No. 0004/2024, under Sections 376, 506, 313 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar Vistar, District Lucknow unless sufficient and cogent evidence is available against them. They shall, however, cooperate in the investigation.

¶14

Learned AGA shall seek instructions as to the evidence collected, if any, against the petitioners.

¶15

Put up tomorrow i.e., 17.01.2024, as fresh.

¶16

[Narendra Kumar Johari, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶17

Order Date :- 16.1.2024 Santosh/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Srivastav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Srivastav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ganesh Shankar Mishra and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Rahul Srivastav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Gufran Alias Gufran Khan and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Rudra Prasad Tripathi and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Mohd Kamal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others