Asif Ansari vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. dated 29.04.2019 in Case Crime No.0083 of 2019, under Sections 328, 376 & 506 of IPC, P.S. Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar

Heard and perused the records.

In the instant case, F.I.R. was lodged on 29.04.2019. According to it, on 28.10.2018 at about 05:00 p.m. in the evening, the first informant was all alone in her home when the petitioner forcefully entered into the house and by muffling her mouth made her to inhale some substance by which she became unconscious. During that state, the petitioner raped her and also taken some obscene photographs. When the first informant regained consciousness, the petitioner threatened her not to disclose it to anyone or else he would make the photographs viral. Thereafter the petitioner has been repeatedly raping the first informant. There are other details also in the F.I.R.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that this is really a very false case. It is not the first informant, who is the victim in the case but it is the petitioner, who is victim in the case. It is urged that in the instant case, the first informant had exploited sexually a young boy of about 17 years, who is petitioner. Subsequent to this incident a report was lodged by the father of the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police, by which cognizance has already been taken. It is argued that in case, petitioner is arrested, his whole future would be at stake and he would not be able to lead a good life.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that a direction may be issued to the police that petitioner may not be arrested in routine and mechanical manner; petitioner is a minor.

The averments in the F.I.R. are very specific and discloses commission of cognizable offence. What is its truthfulness it cannot be assessed in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the matter for investigation or at trial, as the case may be. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

However apprehension has been made that petitioner may be arrested in routine and mechanical manner. Arrest cannot be made in routine and it is not something, which can be exercised in mechanical manner. There are various guidelines, which are to be followed while effecting arrest. If the petitioner is a minor, in that eventuality the procedure given in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 will come in to play.

With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.