Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15964 of 2019
Petitioner :- Anshika Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Sri Ashish Pandey, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.3 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri D.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.3, Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 27.5.2019, registered as Case Crime No.82 of 2019, under Sections 364, 458 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Jafarganj, District Fatehpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners submits that there was love affair between the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and petitioner no.1 is voluntarily living with petitioner no.2 on her own sweet will. He further submits that as per medical report, the petitioner no.1 is stated to be aged about 19 years, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. No offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned counsel for respondent no.3 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and submitted that as per the High School Certificate, petitioner no.1 is a minor girl and she would be completing 16 years of age on 25.6.2019 as her date of birth mentioned in High School Certificate is 25.6.2003, photocopy of which has been produced and the same is taken on record.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Vivek Varma, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 10.6.2019/NS