[Breaking] Allahabad HC Demands Production Of Gang-Rape Victim Allegedly Detained In Police Station, A Day After State Police Pulled Up For FIR Delay [Read Order]

first_imgTop Stories[Breaking] Allahabad HC Demands Production Of Gang-Rape Victim Allegedly Detained In Police Station, A Day After State Police Pulled Up For FIR Delay [Read Order] Mehal Jain20 Oct 2020 9:55 PMShare This – xThe Allahabad High Court on Tuesday took cognisance of the detention of a gang-rape victim in a police station, from a day after the court pulled up the state police for lodging the FIR only after three months of the alleged incident, and that too only upon the Court’s intervention.The bench of Justices Shashi Kant Gupta and Pankaj Bhatia has directed the police to produce the girl before…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Allahabad High Court on Tuesday took cognisance of the detention of a gang-rape victim in a police station, from a day after the court pulled up the state police for lodging the FIR only after three months of the alleged incident, and that too only upon the Court’s intervention.The bench of Justices Shashi Kant Gupta and Pankaj Bhatia has directed the police to produce the girl before the court on Wednesday. The bench also ordered the SSP, Pyagraj, the present SHO of the concerned police station and the erstwhile SHO, who is now under suspension, to appear before the Court on Wednesday at 10 AM.”Today, a personal affidavit has also been filed by Smt. Kunti, mother of the girl (victim), wherein she has stated that the girl in question (victim) has been detained in the police station by the police authorities since 16.10.2020. It is further stated that the police is not permitting the family members of the petitioner to meet the girl (victim)”, noted the division bench on Tuesday.Even as the Additional Advocate General sought 24 hours’ time to reply, the bench directed the putting of the matter as a fresh case on Wednesday at 10 AM, ordering the police to produce the girl by 21.10.2020 before itself, besides demanding the attendance of the aforesaid police authorities.”The present petition highlights the laxity shown by the officers in triggering the criminal justice system”, the bench had noted on October 15 in context of the petitioner-victim having been made to run from pillar to post to get registered the FIR for gang-rape.In its order dated October 15, the bench had recorded that the present petitioner alleged that on 11.7.2020 she was raped by four persons and she tried to lodge the First Information Report but the FIR was not lodged. On 22.7.2020, the petitioner claims to have submitted an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj highlighting that despite her best efforts, the FIR was not being registered. Once again the petitioner claims to have filed an application on 23.7.2020 informing the SSP that despite best efforts the FIR was not being lodged. Ultimately, the petitioner had approached the High Court by filing an application on 30.7.2020.This Court, vide order dated 12.10.2020, had called for instructions from the Standing Counsel. The Standing Counsel has produced the instructions dated 14.10.2020 wherein it has been admitted that a complaint dated 23.7.2020 was indeed forwarded by the petitioner before the SSP. It was further stated in the instructions that the said report was forwarded by the SSP to the concerned Police Station for further action.In pursuance of the said directions, an FIR claims to have been registered on 13.10.2020 under sections 376-D, 392, 328, 504, 506 IPC. It was also brought on record that the statement of the petitioner has been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 14.10.2020 and the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. shall be recorded soon. The medico legal examination report of sexual violence was furnished, and the medical examination of the prosecutrix was said to have been done on 14.10.2020.”The sequence of the evidence, as recorded above, on the basis of instructions, highlights the sheer callousness of the police authorities in lodging the FIR after about three months of the alleged incident that too only after this Court had intervened and had called for instructions”, the bench had stated, reiterating that it is well settled that the information disclosing a cognizable offence should be initiated with all expedition as the same is necessary to bring the prosecution to its logical conclusion fairly. “Whereas, in the present case, laxity, which has been done at the behest of the police authorities, has not been explained at all. There is no explanation as to why three months was taken for lodging the FIR and for proceeding in accordance with the complaint made by the petitioner. There is nothing on record as to what action was taken by the Senior Superintendent of Police except merely forwarding the application of the petitioner before the Station House Officer, Police Station Phoolpur, District Prayagraj”, the bench had reprimanded.On a prima facie consideration, the Court was of the view that on account of the laxity of the police officials, the prosecution may be seriously affected. The bench had stated that the action taken in the form of lodging of the FIR on 13.10.2020 and the subsequent medico legal examination of the petitioner on 14.10.2020, are “prima facie a hogwash”.”Considering the facts, which prima facie disclose the laxity on the part of the police authorities, this Court is of the view that the matter needs to be taken seriously. Needless to add that time and again the courts have emphasized lodging of the FIR and conducting the medico legal examination with all expedition”, the bench had expressed.Noting that the respondent authorities, prima facie, have failed to take action as was expected of them, the Court had declared that the liability for the lapses which are prima facie evident, should be fixed, and as such the SSP and the SHO were directed to appear personally before the Court on Tuesday on which date the Court proposed to pass further orders “keeping in view the glaring facts, which have come to the knowledge of the Court”.Click Here to Download Order[Read Order]Next Storylast_img read more