Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24724 of 2014 Applicant :- Furqan And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- T.A. Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Today when the case was taken up, the counter affidavit was not on record, Sri Piyush Dubey counsel fort the opposite party no. 2 has supplied the copy of counter affidavit which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Piyush Dubey counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants are challenging the Criminal Case No. 83 of 2014, Case Crime No. 454 of 2013, u/s 363 IPC, P.S. Said Nagli, District Amroha pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar.
Submission made by the counsel for the applicants that the FIR was got registered on 07.12.2013 by father of the victim against two named accused persons with the allegation that his minor daughter (17 years) was enticed away by the accused Furqan and this fact was witnesses by number of persons. It is further submitted that the girl was returned back on her own after 5-6 days of the incident. Thereafter, she was put for recording her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has candidly stated that on account of scolding by her parents, she on her own violation and accord went to her relatives place and nobody has kidnapped her. This story was reiterated in the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
Taking into account the victim's statements recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. whereby she has candidly stated that nobody has kidnapped her and on account of some misunderstanding and discontent from her parents, she on her own went to her relative's place, this case is not fall within the ambit of section 363 of IPC and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is erroneous and may be set aside.
The police after recording the statement of the victim, submitted the final report in the matter and without sending notice and having any protest petition, the learned Magistrate by impugned order dated 27.05.2014 has taken cognizane of the offence and reject the final report. The learned counsel for the applicants has assailed the order impugned on the grounds that (i) no ingredients of section 363 of IPC is made out (ii) learned Magistrate has adopted an erroneous procedure without having any protest petition from the applicant of which the learned Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar has taken cognizance.
I have gone through the order impugned and find that the order dated 27.05.2014 is dehors of the procedure and section 363 IPC is totally missing from the case.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 was unable to justify or defend the order dated 27.05.2014.
Accordingly, the cognizance order dated 27.05.2014 is hereby quashed and the present application is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Nisha