Allahabad High Court
Deepu @ Deepak Kumar And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 January, 2020
Author: Ram Krishna Gautam
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 74 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 775 of 2020 Petitioner :- Deepu @ Deepak Kumar And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanesh Tiwari,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This application, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, has been field by Deepu @ Deepak Kumar and 5 others, with a prayer for setting aside impugned order dated 5.12.2019, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, in Misc. Case No. 806/12/19 (Hari Ram Vs. Deepu and others), under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., P.S. Lalganj, District Basti.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that prosecutrix and accused were major. They have entered in a valid marriage. They had filed proceeding before this Court, wherein, Writ C No. 38121 of 2019 (Shikha and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), there is a direction for protection to prosecutrix as well as accused. But subsequently, this direction for investigation of non cognizable offence report was given and applicants will be coerced by Investigating Officer. Hence, this application with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.
From the very perusal of order of this Court in Writ C No. 38121 of 2019 (Shikha and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), it is apparent that it was contended before this court that no report was got lodged, till above date of order, i.e., 22.11.2019, whereas non cognizable report was got lodged on 21.11.2019 and this fact was not placed before this Court. This Court has mentioned the contention of petitioners and has directed them to appear before Senior Superintendent of Police for making compliance of direction of Apex Court given in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2006 Cr.L.J. 3309. It was further specified by this Court that the Court has not adjudicated the validity of the marriage and/or genuineness of their marriage certificate claimed by the petitioners or the correct age of the petitioners. It has been further clarified that above order has not been passed to protect petitioners from any action or proceeding instituted in accordance with law. Meaning thereby, neither age of prosecutrix nor validity of marriage was considered by this Court, in above proceeding of Writ C, and it was left over to police as well as Magistrate, to be seen in course of law. Now, a non cognizable offence report was got lodged, by father of prosecutrix, with contention that prosecutrix was previously married and she was enticed and kept by accused, with a view to have illicit intercourse of her, i.e., offence punishable under Section 498 I.P.C. Other accused persons were assigned the role of abatement, assistance in commission of above crime. It was a report previously lodged i.e. prior to passing order by this Court and under Section 155 of Cr.P.C., there is a procedure for grant of permission for making investigation in a cognizable offence report. An application before Magistrate was moved with above prayer and it was allowed, vide impugned order. Hence, this too, is in accordance with legal procedure. Investigation is to take in accordance with law and it can never be presumed that applicants will be tortured or coerced in above investigation. Rather, they are expected to co-operate in investigation, before Investigating Officer. Moreso, Magistrate to see implementation of its order, under law and precedence. Accordingly, this application merits its dismissal.
Dismissed, as such.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
Order Date :- 28.1.2020 Kamarjahan