AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravindra Maithani, J
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned FIR No. 02 of 2019, dated 05.02.2019, under Section 365, 363 I.P.C., Police Station Pangla (Dharchula), District Pithoragarh, as well as for the stay of his arrest.
According to the FIR, the daughter of the first informant, a minor studying in Class VII had gone to school on 29.01.2019 but she did not return. When searched, it was revealed that she had moved to some other place in a vehicle. During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner had sent her to his home at Vishakhapatnam by paying her Rs.2000/- so that she could work in his home. The prosecutrix fortunately was brought back to her home with the help of the Child Welfare Committee, Delhi.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that no offence is made out against the petitioner. He had no intention to kidnap the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix, on her own volition had gone to Vishakhapatnam and returned back to her home. Had the petitioner any intention to retain her in his house, he would have done some other actions, which he did not?
Learned counsel for the State would submit that in her statement given under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the prosecutrix has categorically stated that under the pretext of getting her educated, the petitioner enticed the prosecutrix and sent her at his home at Vishakhapatnam by paying her Rs.2000/-
The prosecutrix is 13 years of age. It is a case of taking away a 13 years old girl from the custody of her parents, without their consent. According to the investigation, it is the petitioner, who sent a minor girl for his household work to Vishakhapatanam but fortunately she could return. FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence. Its truthfulness will be ascertained during investigation or at trial, as the case may be
Having considered the submissions, and under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in this matter and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.