Allahabad High Court
Poonam Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 July, 2023
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141928-DB Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7994 of 2023 Petitioner :- Poonam Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Singh,Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Tarun Kumar Sahu,Viresh Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A. for State respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 12.4.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 43 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 324, 354(Kha), 377 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District East (Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar). Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is mother-in-law of the victim and the offence under Section 377 IPC by no stretch of imagination is made out against the petitioner. It is pointed out that the allegation in respect of Section 377 IPC is only against the husband and rest of the offences are covered by Section 41-A Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that in paragraph 12 of the petition it has been stated that the petitioner has started living separately with her elder son and therefore, she has been falsely implicated.
4. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that Section 377 IPC is not made out against the petitioner and they have no objection if benefit of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. is extended to the petitioner as the role of the petitioner is entirely different from the role of the other accused.
5. The submission is that as against the petitioner all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment upto seven years, therefore, the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2017 and in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vimal Kumar & 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others, 2021 (2) ACR 1147.
6. We have gone through the impugned first information report and we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the above noted judgment are equally applicable to the facts of the instance case insofar as the present petitioner is concerned.
7. Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in terms of the judgments noted above insofar as the petitioner herein Poonam Gupta-mother-in-law is concerned.
Order Date :- 18.7.2023 Lalit Shukla