Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20669 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sahil @ Kallu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Azad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
(Per: Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J)
Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking quashment of impugned FIR dated 19.01.2019, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 18 of 2019, under sections 376, 120B I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Konch, District Jalaun.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned FIR has been lodged making false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that earlier petitioner has filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4516 of 2019 which was decided by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.02.2019 and it was directed that the Investigating Officer shall get the statement of Chandni recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. and medical examination for determination of her age. In compliance of that order, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C., wherein she stated her age 18-19 years and further stated that she has gone with the petitioner of her own consent and has performed Nikah with him. As per X-ray report, the age of the prosecutrix was 19 years but Investigating Officer has added sections 376 and 120B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act on the basis of her age recorded in her Junior High School Certificate. Learned counsel has argued that the victim Chandni is a major girl and she has performed Nikah with the petitioner of her own free will and consent and thus the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A has opposed and argued that allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence against the petitioner and thus it could not be said that no case is made out against the petitioner.
It is apparent from the record that in compliance of the order dated 18.02.2019 passed in the above writ petition, learned C.J.M., Jalaun at Orai has determined the age of the victim as 16 years, 4 months and 10 days and thus on the date of offence victim girl was minor.
Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
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 petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Raj Beer Singh,J) (Pritinker Diwaker,J) Order Date :- 22.8.2019 T.S.