Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20664 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Akshita Pandey And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Chaubey,Sumit Suri Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Rai,Durgesh Kumar Singh,Raj Kumar Kesari
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Per: Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.
Sri Vivek Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking quashment of impugned FIR dated 23.07.2019, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 292 of 2019, under section 363 IPC, Police Station Manduadih, District Varanasi.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that impugned FIR has been lodged making false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that petitioner no.1 is aged about 19 years and that she has left her parental house at her own free will and performed marriage with petitioner no.1 on 23.07.2019 and out of this wedlock, a girl child was born. Earlier petitioner nos. 1 & 2 have filed Writ Petition No. 24916 of 2019 for protection, wherein they were provided protection of three weeks. It was submitted that petitioner no.1 is a major girl and thus, prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioners and the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A has opposed and argued that allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence against the petitioners and thus it could not be said that no case is made out against the petitioners.
In the FIR, there are allegations against petitioner nos. 2 and 3 that the petitioner no.1 was enticed away by petitioner no.2 and when the complainant contacted petitioner no.3, his involvement in the alleged kidnapping, was also suspected. As per high school certificate of petitioner no.1, her date of birth is 04.08.2002 and thus, at the time of the alleged incident, she was a minor girl. Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 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 petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Pritinker Diwaker,J.)
Order Date :- 22.8.2019
A. Tripathi