Allahabad High Court
Padmdhar Pandey @ Padam Pandey And ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 8 October, 2018
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana, Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27319 of 2018
Petitioner :- Padmdhar Pandey @ Padam Pandey And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navaneet Chandra Tripathi,Pulak Ganguly
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 31.8.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 1025 of 2018, U/s 376 (2)(B), 342, 506 IPC, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that although the petitioners are named in the FIR but the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure No. S.A.-1) has not made any kind of allegation against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3. All the allegations have been made by her against petitioner no. 1 Padmdhar Pandey @ Padam Pandey and hence the role of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is clearly distinguishable from that of the petitioner no. 1. Moreover, apart from the bald allegations made in the FIR, no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the petitioners' complicity of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 in the commission of alleged offence. Hence the impugned FIR against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the impugned FIR and on the basis of the allegation made therein, it can not be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioners.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned FIR, we are not inclined to quash the same.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to their extending full co-operation during investigation.
As far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned against whom the prosecutrix has made allegation of rape, the petition stands dismissed.
However, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.10.2018
Masarrat
