Uttarakhand High Court
Rambha Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 17 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.985 of 2023
Rambha Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner
seeks the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus, directing the
investigating authority regarding First
Information Report No.273 of 2023 dated
08/06/2023 at Police Station
Kundeshwari, Kashipur, Distt. Udham
Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand under Section
147, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (Annexed as Annexure no.1
to this Writ petition) to conduct the re-
investigation by a female police officer
including the recording the statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the
application and her minor daughter.
(ii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case be passed in
the favour of the petitioner.
(c) Award the cost of the petition."
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The petitioner is the informant in FIR No.273 of
2023, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
According to it, on 30.05.2023, the private respondents
assaulted the petitioner, her husband, her son and abused
them, threatened them to life, attacked them with sharp
edged weapon and the minor daughter of the informant was
also beaten up, her clothes were torn up. She also sustained
injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the averments made in the FIR disclose commission of
offence under the provisions of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the POCSO Act"), but the FIR has
not been lodged under those Sections. In case of POCSO Act,
the investigation is to be done by a female Investigating
Officers. Therefore, directions of the Court are required ine
matter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
argued that the Investigating Officer is not recording the
statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"), as required under
Section 25 of the POCSO Act.
6. What the petitioner seeks is reinvestigation by a
female police officer. It is stated that the FIR was given in
writing. The FIR has not been lodged under the POCSO Act.
7. Has any offence under the POCSO Act been
made out or whether the Offences under the POCSO Act are
disclosed by a bare perusal of the FIR, the Court refrains to
make any observation at this moment. But, undoubtedly, the
FIR discloses Commission of offences. The FIR has been
lodged on 08.06.2023. Investigation is underway. During
investigation, the Investigating Officer may also alter the
offences, or in case he finds that any offence under the
POCSO Act is made out, the matter may accordingly proceed
further. If the Investigating Officer does not find any offence
under the POCSO Act, and submits a police report, the
informant has every remedy when the police report is filed.
8. In so far as the recording of the statement of the
victim under Section 164 of the Code is concerned, this Court
may not, at this stage, direct the Investigating Officer to get
the statement recorded.
9. Learned counsel for the petition has also
referred to the provisions of Section 173 of the Code to argue
that, in fact, in the matter of rape, the investigation has to be
completed within two months or otherwise, it should be
completed without unnecessary delay.
10. As stated, the FIR has been lodged on
08.06.2023. This Court does not see any reason to pass any
direction, keeping in view those aspects of delay.
11. Having considered, this Court does not see any
reason to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
12. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
17.07.2023
Ravi Bisht
