Allahabad High Court
Ravita And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 February, 2020
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar, Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1647 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ravita And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jyoti Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned A.G.A. for State.
The present writ petition has been filed with following prayer:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 and 3 to conclude fair and proper investigation of Case Crime No. 92 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 328, 376, 504, 120-B IPC and 3/4 the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh including affidavit dated 26.01.2020 submitted by the petitioner No. 1 in aforesaid case."
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measure against the petitioners till submission of charge-sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.c. in Case Crime No. 92 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 328, 376, 504, 120-B IPC and 3/4 the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh and the petitioner No. 1 be permitted to appear in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh for recording her statement Under Section 164 Cr.P.C. again."
On 29.05.2018, the report of this incident was lodged by complainant alleging that his daughter namely Ravita went to Suhana Beauty Parlor and Sewing Training Centre at Thekma Bazar as usual in the morning of 26th May, 2018 at 09:30 A.M. and used to come back home at 4:00 P.M. That day she did not return till 6:00 P.M. The informant went to the Suhana Beauty Parlor and asked its proprietor (Sanchalika) about his daughter and was informed that Ravita had not come at Centre." Being puzzled, the complainant phoned everywhere and also searched among relations, but the whereabouts of his minor daughter whose date of birth is 02.01.2002 could not be known. On his application the First Information Report was lodged by the concerned police and investigation of the matter has started.
In para - 7 of the writ petition it is admitted that date of birth of petitioner No. 1 as per her High School Mark Sheet of 2017 is 02.01.2002, which means on the date of incident i.e. on 26.05.2018 she was just about 16 years of age.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (56) ACC 433 has held that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.
In this view of the matter, we do not find any good ground for interference in the writ petition.
The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.2.2020 LBY