Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37563 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vikas Saroj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Upadhyay,Abhishek Kumar Saroj Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.
The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of Vikash Saroj, with the following reliefs;
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the F.I.R. dated 06.04.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0060 of 2018, under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. and 3/7 POCSO Act, P.S. Maharajganj, District Jaunpur (Annexure No. 2) to this writ petition.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding and directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the F.I.R. dated 06.04.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0060 of 2018, u/s 363, 366 I.P.C. and 3/7 POCSO Act, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Jaunpur(Annexure No. 2) to this writ petition."
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No.0060 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376D, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 and 3/7 POCSO Act, P.S. Maharajganj, District Jaunpur.
The contention of the counsel appearing for the Vikash Saroj is to the effect that petitioner was not named in the First Information Report and however subsequently the girl was recovered and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the petitioner was named therein and a specific role was assigned to him by the girl, the copy of statement of the girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been annexed as Annexure No. 3, on page 28 of the writ petition. The same has been perused by the Court.
When the case was taken up for hearing, Sri Sandeep Kumar Agrahari has put in appearance on behalf of Sukhai Saroj, the first informant and the Vakalatnama has also been signed by the victim herself, Mausam Saroj. The court was informed that the victim as well as the father are present before the Court. Reliance has also been placed on counsel for the respondent and affidavit copy has been annexed on page 31 of the writ petition, which is a joint affidavit. However, the court has been informed that first informant is present before the Court and the victim herself is present before the Court. By way of abundant caution this Court has proceeded to examine the first informant Sukhai as well as the victim and on being asked from the first informant "kya yah F.I.R. apne hi likhayi thi", he says "yes". He further says that "esme vikash ka koe nam nahi tha aur mujhe vikash se koe sikayat nahi hai". Keeping in view the statement made by the father the girl was confronted with the statement given by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has named the Vikash. She says "maine apna bayan magistrate saheb ke samne diya tha lekin maine usme vikash ka nam nahi liya tha aur mujhe bhi vikash se sikayat nahi hai" . She further informs the Court "ab uski shadi ho chuki hai kisi aur ke sath, ab usko ye mukadama pursue nahi karna hai".
The first informant as well as the girl has made a categorical statement before the Court that they are not interested in litigating the matter against the petitioner. She only says that "vikash nahi the" she does not says that "baki log nahi the". In view of the statement made by father and girl before the Court, a case for grant of indulgence in the favour of the petitioner, Vikash Saroj has been made out. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the averments made in paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of the writ petition. However, the fact remains that the case requires further and proper investigation. No useful purpose would be served in pending the matter before this Court any further; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 V.S.Singh