Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR dated 26.9.2020 which was registered as Case Crime No. 487 of 2020, under section 354, 354B, 376, 511, 506 IPC, P.S. Lisari Gate, District Meerut with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed the alleged offence. There is civil dispute in between father-in-law of victim and father of petitioner no. 1. The father-in-law of respondent no. 3/victim namely Naseer Uddin sold a plot for Rs. 4 lacs upon which construction was made by the petitioners. Rs. 3 lacs were received by the father-in-law of informant/victim on 30.4.2018. Only Rs. 1 lac has to be paid. In this regard father-in-law of respondent no.3/victim issued a receipt. Petitioner no. 3 Saeed Ahmad and petitioner no. 4 Ameer Ahmad were witnesses of that receipt. Father-in-law of informant/victim had not executed the sale deed. In this regard father of petitioner no. 1 made a complaint to several police authorities and also filed a civil suit no. 360 of 2020 Zameer Uddin Vs. Naseer Uddin on 21.9.2020. In that suit notice was issued to the father-in-law of respondent no. 3/victim, thereafter, victim/informant had lodged the impugned FIR making false allegation against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. Petitioner no. 3 and 4 were not named in the FIR. The victim in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. has also disclosed the name of petitioner no. 3 Saeed Ahmad and petitioner no. 4 Ameer Ahmad making allegation of marpit against them. It has further been submitted that there is material contradiction in FIR as well as in the statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. The impugned FIR has been lodged only for the purpose of harassment and to make pressure upon the petitioners for settlement of civil dispute. No such incident has taken place. The victim/respondent no. 3 is a married lady aged about 33 years, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Per contra; learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing the FIR and argued that the FIR has been lodged by the respondent no. 3/victim herself. The FIR was lodged against petitioner no. 1 Jubair Ahmad, petitioner no. 2 Jani and one unknown. In FIR allegation of molestation and attempt to commit rape has been levelled. The victim/respondent no. 3 in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. has also corroborated the version of FIR. The allegation of marpit has also been levelled against the petitioners by the victim in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. From the allegations made in the FIR prima facie a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, therefore, the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed.
In FIR as well as in the statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. the allegation of molestation and attempt to rape has been levelled against the petitioner no. 1 Jubair Ahmad and allegation of marpit has been levelled against petitioner nos. 2 to 4.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any ground to quash the FIR, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is refused and the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021 Masarrat