ANWARUNNISA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3. Under challenge is FIR relating to Case Crime No. C-2/2009, under Sections 363,366 I.P.C. and during investigation Section 376 I.P.C. is also added, Police Station Kotwali Utraula, district Balrampur. We have gone through the contents of the F.I.R., statement of the witnesses, statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and medical evidence from which it comes out that the prosecutrix is aged about 17-18 years and she has stated that the petitioner had taken active part to see that the prosecutrix is taken away by the other accused persons, namely, Gulam Navi and Mainuddin. The prosecutrix has stated that the petitioner had accompanied the other accused persons up to the Railway Station but there is no serious allegation against her. Let the things be as they are, since the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence and, as such, the same cannot be quashed. Considering the above facts and circumstance of the case, we hereby dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case crime number until and unless cogent and credible evidence is come forward against her provided the petitioner co-operates in the investigation. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.