Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25487 of 2018 Petitioner :- Seema Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ganesh Shankar Dubey,Radhey Shyam Singh Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yogendra Pratap Tripathi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no.4, Sri Irshad Husain, learned brief holder appearing for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 02.09.2018, registered as case crime No.236 of 2018, under Section 364, I.P.C., P.S. Derapur, District Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady and has been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention. He further submitted that the petitioner was never married with the son of respondent no.4 as her marriage was solemnized with co-accused Suresh Chandra Yadav in the year 1999 and from their wedlock three children were born. He next argued that the petitioner and her husband are not involved in the disappearance of the son of respondent no.4 nor they have given any threat to the respondent no.4 or her son, but the respondent no.4 in collusion with rivals of husband of petitioner, has lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioner and her husband levelling absolutely false and frivolous allegations, though no offence is made out, hence present FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the caveator has opposed the prayer and the submits that the body of the boy has yet not been recovered.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a lady, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.
With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.
The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of other co-accused persons.
It is made clear that the Court has granted indulgence only on account of the fact that the petitioner is a lady and order granting interim protection to the petitioner shall not be treated as parity to other co-accused persons.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 VKG