Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20673 of 2019 Petitioner :- Saniya And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yadvesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
(Per: Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Sri Yadvesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 petitioners, seeking quashment of impugned FIR dated 03.08.2019, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 0564 of 2019, under sections 363, 366 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Swaar District Rampur.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that impugned FIR has been lodged making false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have married with each other and are living as husband and wife and that as per Aadhar Card, the date of birth of petitioner no.1 Saniya is 01.01.2000 and thus she was major girl. As per her PAN card also, she is major girl. It was argued that prima facie no cognizance offence is made out against the petitioner nos. 2 to 6.
Per contra, learned A.G.A has opposed and argued that allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclosed commission of cognizable offence against the petitioner and thus it could not be said that no case is made out against the petitioner.
In the FIR, the date of birth of petitioner no.1 Saniya is shown 12.07.2003 and there are allegations that petitioner nos. 2 to 6 have kidnapped her and have also abused and threatened to kill the complainant. Copy of the Aadhar card and PAN card is not relevant document to determine the age of petitioner no.1. Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The submission 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 petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Raj Beer Singh,J) (Pritinker Diwaker,J) Order Date :- 22.8.2019 T.S.