Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10513
of 2018
Petitioner :- Laxman
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Pundir Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 11.04.2018 in Case Crime No. 100 of 2018, under Sections 366, 120- B IPC, P.S.- Ahar, District- Bulandshaher.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the girl was forced to marry with an old person, who have already four children. Then, the girl ran away with the co-accused Sonu, thereafter, she came back and again, she ran away with Sonu.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner happens to be Gram Pradhan of the village. Much reliance has been placed upon paragraph nos.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the writ petition; the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant- respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioner; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003(4) SCC 675 and Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others decided on 27.7.2017 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2013 of 2017, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Nadim