Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26048 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Syeda And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Zafar Abbas Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mohd. Nuruddin Khan holding brief of Sri Shahnawaz Shah, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.3, the learned AGA for the respondents-State and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the first information report dated 24.7.2019 bearing Case Crime No.
265 of 2019, under Sections 366, 504, 363, 376 and 368 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kiratpur, district Bijnor.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first information report was lodged by the respondent no. 3 with the allegations that the petitioners have played an active role in enticing away the minor daughter of the respondent no. 3 with Akram the brother of the petitioner no. 2 and persuaded them to marry.
It has further been submitted that the first information report was registered under Sections 366 and 504 later on the victim was recovered and her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded, in which she has not deposed anything against the petitioners rather she had only said that the son of the petitioner no. 1 is a married person and has two children out of the wedlock of the previous wife and she has performed marriage out of her free will, thus from the perusal of the record and the first information report and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. nothing has been stated against the petitioners except that they had used some vituperative words when the complainant reached at his house enquiring about his daughter.
It has further been submitted that the son of the petitioner is languishing in jail. The prosecution of the petitioners is with mala fide intention and to harass them. Therefore, the first information report so lodged by the respondent no. 3 is liable to be quashed.
Per contra the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioners have played active roll in enticing away the minor daughter of the complainant. The allegations contained in the first information report cannot be nipped in the bud. There are sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioners. The innocence of the petitioners cannot be adjudged at this stage.
From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioners therefore, we do not find any cogent or convincing reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.
With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Shahnawaz