Narsingh Tiwari vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, JJ.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Sand, learned A.G.A. for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. This is a peculiar case where the father of the victim, who is the complainant, has come forward with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. and an alternative prayer for a mandamus to the respondent No. 3 not to interrogate the petitioner or subject the petitioner''s daughter to any further investigation that may amount to harassment. In effect, the prayer is that the petitioner no longer wants to prosecute the accused at his instance.

The F.I.R. was lodged where allegations were made of kidnapping of the girl who, according to the version in the F.I.R., had not attained the age of majority of 18 years and was also mentally of a lower level.

The accused are alleged to have enticed her away, hence, the F.I.R. which is more than almost five months old.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the background that the girl has already been recovered and she is in the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner does not want to take any further action in the matter keeping in view the future of his daughter.

Learned A.G.A. takes an objection to this prayer being made by the informant himself for quashing of the F.I.R. on the ground that if the allegations in the F.I.R. are found to be false, then there is a likelihood of the petitioner himself being prosecuted and this action or process can be undertaken by the court upon a police report being filed in the matter and not before that. In the aforesaid circumstances, he contends that the petitioner, who is the informant, has no locus to get the F.I.R. quashed in the aforesaid background and even otherwise it is the responsibility of the State now to find out through its Investigating Agency as to whether any cognizable offence has been committed or not which is liable to be dealt with and punishment awarded in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Indian Penal Code.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to this peculiar circumstance and it prima facie appears that the petitioner is now praying to save the honour of his family after this incidence has taken place as well as protect the future of his daughter.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner appears to have moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police. Learned A.G.A. therefore, is right in his submissions that it is now for the Investigating Officer to submit his report keeping in view the provisions of Section 157 read with Section 158, Cr.P.C. coupled with the report which might be submitted finally under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C. The contention, therefore, is that if the closure of the case is warranted in the background aforesaid, the same has to be attempted through the aforesaid agency and the procedure prescribed in law.

Apart from this, we also find it necessary that since a report has been alleged disclosing a cognizable offence then before any such report is submitted or accepted by the court concerned, it would be appropriate that the statement of the victim is also recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C.

We, therefore, direct that the statement of the victim should be recorded before the court below under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and thereafter, it will be open to the court concerned to pass appropriate orders in the background aforesaid, if warranted on the facts of the present case for closure. Disposed of with the said observations.