Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1863 of 2019 Petitioner :- Gayatri And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kishor Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned AGA for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.
The instant petition seek quashing of the first information report dated 04.01.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0002 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 316 IPC, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura.
On 06.02.2019, we had passed the following order:
"On 24.1.2019 we had passed the following order :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and perused the record.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to the first information report, in the incident, the informant and his Aunt (chachi) Savita were stated to have been injured but the injury report placed by the prosecution relates to some Neetu and therefore no case is made out.
The learned A.G.A. shall seek instructions from the investigating officer of Case Crime No. 002 of 2019 at Police Station-Barsana, District-Mathura whether there is any injury report in support of prosecution case and whether Savita is the @ name of Neetu; and whether the prosecution is relying upon the injury report of Neetu. And, in that regard, any clarificatory statement has been recorded or not.
Put up this matter on 06.02.2019.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned A.G.A. for compliance."
Learned A.G.A. states that he has been unable to obtain instruction as desired by this court.
List this matter on 27.2.2019 on which date the Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 002 of 2019 shall be personally present before this court and file an affidavit in the light of the order dated 24.1.2019.
Till the next date of listing no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in the aforesaid case."
Pursuant to the above order, an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the Investigating Officer, who is also present before the Court in person.
In the affidavit, it is stated that two persons had received injuries, namely, Smt. Savita Devi and Smt. Neetu, and the statement of both these persons have been recorded.
From the record, it appears that initially the incident was reported as non cognizable report by one Sonu Gopal, who had alleged that his aunt Savita Devi had been assaulted. In the report it was not disclosed that any other person by the name of Neetu was assaulted.
It appears that statement of Neetu was recorded on 11.01.2019 and she had disclosed that she had suffered injuries and had to abort on account of injuries as she had been three months pregnant.
The injury reports of Neetu as well as Savita Devi have been brought on record.
It appears that Savita had suffered a lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm in the left forearm, which was found simple in nature, caused by blunt and hard object. Insofar as Neetu is concerned, it appears that she had pain in the abdomen and bleeding was found present. The doctor formed an opinion that hard and blunt object had been used.
Although, there appears some defect in the manner in which report has been registered because it appears that the report was on behalf of the victim Savita but was registered at the instance of Sonu Gopal. But it is well settled that on technical mistakes, the first information report or the proceeding in pursuance thereof cannot be quashed, because, ultimately it is the court which would deal with the matter on the basis of substantive evidence led in the trial.
Under the circumstances, we reject the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report.
The petition is dismissed. The dismissal of this petition shall be without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to apply for bail.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019/Lbm/-