Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25730 of 2019 Petitioner :- Neeshu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Kumar,K.P. Singh Kaushal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 281 of 2019 under sections 354, 323, 376, 511 I.P.C. and 7 and 8 of POCSO Act Police Station Maudarwaja District Fatehgarh (Farrukhabad) with a further prayer, not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the first information report.
The allegation in the F.I.R. is that on 21.10.2019 at about 7.15 p.m. while the daughter of the informant was going near the railway track, Jagveer, Durgesh, Nitin, Sujit Kumar and Nishu caught hold of his daughter and tried to commit rape upon her. On her cries the informant and other persons reached the spot and saved his daughter and apprehended Jagveer while other accused made good their escape.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. which has not been properly explained. Hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations. It is also submitted by the learned A.G.A. that in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim, who is a minor, has corroborated the version of the F.I.R. and therefore no interference is required by this court.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is provided that if the petitioner appears or surrenders before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail in the aforesaid case, his prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 o.k.