GOLU YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri P.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.

(2.) The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 15.2018 registered as Case Crime No.173 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that initially an FIR was registered against the petitioner by respondent no.4 which was registered as Case Crime No.240 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad on 12.2017 for the incident dated 14.1.2017. Thereafter, in the said case, statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and from perusal of which it is apparent that she was a consenting party with the petitioner and as per the medical examination report, the victim girl was found to be aged above 16 years and below 18 years of age.Thereafter relationship between the petitioner and victim girl became uncordial and victim left the petitioner.The petitioner has already got himself bailed out in the aforesaid case. He next argued that the present FIR has been lodged by respondent no.4 for the same very incident after one year of the incident on 15.2.2018. He states that the petitioner has no knowledge about the victim girl. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out out against the petitioners, hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.