SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Adesh Kumar @ Chhange vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 November, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 46

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 23366 of 2019

Petitioner :- Adesh Kumar @ Chhange

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

Hon’ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 25.06.2019 registered in Case Crime No. 184 of 2019, under Sections 354 I.P.C., 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3 (1)(d) SC/SectionST Act, P.S. Ghiror, district Mainpuri.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.4 against the petitioner with the allegations that when the complainant along with others went to the field for plucking the dates, the petitioner and other co-accused persons came and tried to outrage her modesty. On hue and cry the accused persons fled away from the spot. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned first information report no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed.

Per contra the learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations contained in the first information report cannot be nipped in the bud. There are sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioner. The innocence of the petitioner cannot be adjudged at this stage.

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56) ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, it is provided that if the petitioner appears or surrenders before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail in the aforesaid case, his prayer for bail shall be considered by the courts below expeditiously, in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 11.11.2019

SFH

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation