Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25470 of 2018 Petitioner :- Daroga Bhartiya @ Dheeraj Kumar (Minor) And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Varun Dev Sharma,Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 1.9.2018 registered as Case Crime No.564 of 2018, under Sections 328, 342, 363, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ghoorpur, District Allahabad.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation regarding commission of offence u/s 376, 328 IPC is against the petitioner no.1- Daroga Bhartiya @ Dheeraj Kumar. As regard to petitioner nos.2 and 3, who are sister-in- law and brother-in-law of petitioner no.1, the only allegation against them is that the petitioner no.1 had kept the victim under illegal confinement in their house and hence, the role of petitioner nos.2 and 3 is clearly distinguishable from that of petitioner no.1. It is next contended that allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. are palpably false. Moreover, apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned FIR no credible evidence whatsoever is coming forth even prima facie indicating their complicity in the commission of the alleged crime and the impugned FIR qua the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the impugned FIR and on the basis of the allegation made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioners.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned FIR, we are not inclined to quash the same.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the provisions of Section 157 Cr.P.C. and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Versus State of U.P.; 1994 Cr.L.J 1981, it is directed that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 shall not be arrested in the abovementioned case, till the credible evidence is not collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation.
As far as petitioner no. 1 Daroga Bhartiya @ Dheeraj Kumar is concerned, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is directed that in case petitioner no.1 appears before the court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Shalini