Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2442 (ALL)

Ramveer v. State of U. P.

2016-07-14

ALOK KUMAR MUKHERJEE, BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard Sri Rahul Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The petitioners are present in the Court and have been identified by their counsel. 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 22.6.2016 registered as Case Crime No.199 of 2016, u/s 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S.Patiyali, district Kanshiram Nagar. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are major and have married each other. Further submission is that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 5. From the perusal of the FIR it appears that on the basis of allegation made therein the prima facie cognizanable offence is made out. There is no scope of interfering in the FIR. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused. 6. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case Smt. Lata, petitioner no. 2 appears/produced before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kansiram Nagar within 20 days from today and moves an application for her medical examination, recording her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate concerned shall fix a date for the same purpose, on that date the first informant & officer in charge of the police station concerned shall be summoned, she shall be produced before C.M.O. concerned by the concerned police officer for her medical examination thereafter she shall be produced before CJM concerned for recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. The same shall be recorded on the application filed by the I.O./Officer in charge of the police station concerned. Till then no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners, in default of it, it shall be open to the police authority concerned to arrest the petitioners, if she is found major and does not support the FIR version. The petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. In case the petitioner no. 2 appears to be minor or if she is major but supports the prosecution version, it shall be open to the police authority to arrest the petitioners. 7. It is further directed that issue of custody of petitioner no. 2 shall also be decided by the CJM concerned in accordance with law. In case the petitioner no. 2 appears to be minor or if she is major but supports the prosecution version, it shall be open to the police authority to arrest the petitioners. 7. It is further directed that issue of custody of petitioner no. 2 shall also be decided by the CJM concerned in accordance with law. With the above direction this petition is finally disposed off.