Allahabad High Court
Surendra @ Pilla And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And ... on 12 October, 2017
Bench: Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 20291 of 2017
Petitioner :- Surendra @ Pilla And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avikshit Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Sri Neeraj Sahu Advocate filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of the complainant, the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing the FIR dated 19.08.2017 in Case Crime No. 117/2017, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Arwal, District Hardoi as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. Further prayer to direct the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.2 Asma Devi has solemnised marriage with petitioner no. 1 Surendra @ Pilla on her own sweet-will hence impugned First Information Report is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that since there was an interim order in their favour, hence the petitioners are not co-operating with the investigation. The petitioner no. 2 Asma Devi was not produced either before the Magistrate or before the Investigation Officer for recording her statements, hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.
Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that as per the instructions, according to the High School Certificate, on the date of incident, the victim petitioner no. 2 was major as she has committed 18 years.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature of allegation at this stage it is not a fit case for quashing of the First Information Report.
However, in the interest of justice considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Investigating Officer of the case shall take effective steps to get the statement of the victim petitioner no. 2 Asma Devi recorded before the Magistrate concerned so the correct fact be verified that she herself went with the petitioner no. 1 and under thread and pressure, she was compelled to go with him. If the petitioner no. 2 is not produced before the Investigating Officer/ Magistrate concerned for recording her statement, the Investigating Officer of the case will be at liberty to proceed with in accordance with law to complete the investigation. If the petitioner no.2 is produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned within three weeks from today, then the Magistrate concerned will get her age verified from the record and if she is found major her statement will be recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. After perusal of the statement the Investigating Officer will submit the police report preferably within six weeks. If there is apprehension of any threat from side of the informant or his men, the petitioners will approach the S.S.P./S.P. concerned to provide protection to them to appear before the before the Magistrate concerned to record the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C., he/she will consider the same to ensure the security and safety of the petitioners.
In view of the above, till any order is passed by the Magistrate, concerned, or till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. whichever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case and coercive action shall be taken against them. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation.
Interim order stands discharges.
With the above observation this petition is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 12.10.2017
Monika
