Dismissed

Santosh v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC18 Nov 2020CRLMP/2670/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioner's plea to quash the FIR under the POCSO Act. It held that the child was a minor and the petitioner took her out against her parents' will. The court found the prima facie case of an offence under the POCSO Act and IPC sections 363, 366 made out, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed and the investigating agency was directed to conduct an active investigation.

Santosh Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.2670/2018

¶3

Santosh S/o Mohan, R/o Village Alampur, Ps Kudgaon, District Karauli, Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶7

Ramkishan Gurjar S/o Ramsahai Gurjar, R/o Village Jatwadi, Ps Sapotara, District Karauli.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ramesh Choudhary,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

18/11/2020

¶13

This court vide order dated 4.7.2018 had stayed the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No.284/2017 registered at Police Station Sapotra, District Karauli.

¶14

The Sub-Inspector Udaibhan, Police Station Sapotra District Karauli was present in the court and has stated that the complainant had refused to appear in the court, although, he was summoned twice for the said purpose. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded in habeas corpus petition wherein the girl, who is a minor, has stated that she went to Karauli at petitioner’s place who refused to take her out initially but later on she went with the petitioner to Kerala from where she came alone in train.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the statement made wherein there is no allegation against the

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMP-2670/2018]

¶18

petitioner of having committed any overtact, the offence registered against the petitioner under Sections 363 & 366 IPC deserves to be quashed and Sections 16 & 17 of the POCSO Act be also quashed.

¶19

I have considered the submissions.

¶20

Admittedly, the girl is a minor. Section 16 of the POCSO Act which relates to abatement of offence and Section 17 of the POCSO Act relates to punishment for abatement. The petitioner was having full knowledge of the girl being a minor but inspite of the same he has taken her out against the will of her parents and has thus committed prima facie offence under POCSO Act read with Sections 363 & 366 IPC. He did not inform the parents about the whereabouts of the girl. The freewill or consent of the girl has got no meaning and cannot be taken into consideration with regard to cases registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶21

Keeping in view thereof, no case for interference with the FIR is made out. The criminal misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. The Investigating Agency is directed to conduct investigation quickly and actively.

¶22

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶23

Karan Bhutani /531/113

Santosh v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh v. State of Raj and Anr.

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

Amisha Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Sumitra Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sohan Singh Shekhawat Vs President Shekhawati Gramin Ba

Aas Mohammed Son of Late Shri Chander Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Kumar S/O Shri Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal Ghosalya, S/O Mr. Hanuman Sahai Ghosalya Vs the State of Rajasthan