AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 294 wordsG. Narendar, C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Mani Kumar, and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand Sri J.S. Virk.
The petitioners claim to be complainants in FIR No. 82/ 2025 dated 17.03.2025, registered under Sections 74, 115(2) & 351(2) of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 7 & 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. A copy of the FIR is produced as Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition. The petitioners submit that respondent no. 3, a ward councillor, has threatened to finish them off, and the police, in view of his political status, are not keen to initiate any action, and the third respondent being emboldened by the same, is threatening them with dire consequences.
The petitioners having registered a complaint for a cognizable offence, punishable with imprisonment for a period of more than three years, and in view of the fact that petitioner no. 2 is a minor, the jurisdictional police station cannot be found wanting in discharging their duties.
The learned DAG would submit that the jurisdictional SHO will certainly initiate action in accordance with law, and ensure protection and justice to the petitioners.
In that view, the submission of learned DAG is placed on record, and the Writ Petition stands partly allowed.
The jurisdictional SHO is directed to forthwith take action on the FIR No. 82/ 2025 dated 17.03.2025, strictly in accordance with law, in view of the fact that the offence complained of is punishable with an imprisonment for more than three years under the POCSO Act, 2012, and less than seven years under the BNS, 2023.
The Writ Petition stands ordered accordingly.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.