Court No. - 40
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4984 of 2018 Petitioner :- Robin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arunkumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
The F.I.R. has been lodged under sections 354/452 I.P.C. giving rise to Case Crime No. 1068 of 2017, where the very nature of the allegations indicates a prior alleged relationship between the petitioner and the informant/complainant. This is recited in the impugned F.I.R. dated 16.12.2017 itself.
A copy of the earlier F.I.R. dated 10th May 2017 in Case Crime No. 351 of 2017 has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, where the contention is that the same complainant- informant discloses here age to be about 20 years living in the neighbourhood in some sort of relationship with the petitioner. To this effect the complainant herself voluntarily got her statement recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd Gautam Buddh Nagar, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this being the status of relationship and the genesis of the present complaint, it is evident that the impugned F.I.R. is nothing, but a continuance of harassment after the matter had been settled earlier.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand contends that the present F.I.R. impugned herein incorporates different allegations and therefore to quash the same on the basis of the description of the previous Case Crime number would not be appropriate and would amount to interference with the investigation and keeping in view of nature of F.I.R., no interference may be called for.
Having considered the submissions raised, prima facie, we find that the complainant-informant did not dispute the status of relationship with the petitioner, which was recorded in the statement under section 164 Cr. P. C., a copy whereof is Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. This fact is corroborated by the impugned F.I.R. itself, where she now says that the said statement was got recorded by the petitioner in his favour. In this background, what we find is that even though the allegations are such that at this stage it will not be appropriate to quash the F.I.R., but the petitioner deserves a protection during the investigation of this case.
The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction that no coercive steps including the arrest of the petitioner shall be undertaken unless any credible evidence is collected or the charge sheet is filed against the petitioner, whichever is earlier and it shall be open to the petitioner to seek bail before the concerned Court upon surrender, which, if applied for, shall be expeditiously dealt with forthwith keeping in view the aforesaid background.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 HSM