Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16060 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Dwivedi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Singh,Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,D.M.Tripathi
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri D.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 06.01.2019 registered as case crime no.0004/2019 u/ss. 363, 366, 506, 376, 509, 328, 120-B IPC, PS. Khuldabad, District Prayagraj.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no. 3 had earlier eloped with petitioner no. 1 for which an F.I.R was lodged by her father J.P Tiwari against petitioner no.1 and others which was challenged by them in writ petition no. 382/15 in which an interim order was passed with certain directions on 16.1.2015 and in pursuance of the same, medical examination of the victim was conducted according to which she was found to be major and her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded in which she did not depose anything against petitioner no.1 and the police submitted final report in the matter. The victim remained with petitioner no.1 till 23.3.2018 and thereafter left his house and came back to her parents which is evident from the impugned F.I.R itself and it is stated that the victim now complains that petitioner no. 1 has committed rape on her. Petitioner no. 2 happens to be the mother of petitioner no. 1. He further states that the present F.I.R has been lodged by the victim under the influence of her parents just to harass the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the private respondent opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R and submits that as per the High School certificate of respondent no.3, her date of birth is 30.4.1997 i.e she about 22 years as on date but he could not dispute the fact that in the earlier F.I.R which was lodged by father of respondent no. 3, she had appeared along with the petitioner before this Court and the arrest of petitioner no. 1 was stayed along with other accused persons.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the nature of allegations, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the above mentioned case till submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but they shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.
With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.
(Vivek Varma, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 11.6.2019/Madhurima