Uttarakhand High Court
7 April vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 17 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2786
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 323 of 2025
17 April, 2025
Faima Jahan Alias Faim Jahan
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present writ petition, petition-
er has put to challenge the FIR No.118 of 2025 dated
12.04.2025, under Sections 115, 351(2), 352, 64(1) & 89
of B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 16, 17, 3 and 4 of the
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
registered with Police Station Jaspur, District Udham
Singh Nagar against the petitioner along with two other
co-accused, namely, Mukhtyar Shah and Salman.
3. The first information report contained very
serious allegations of committing rape with the victim, a
minor “X” by co-accused, namely, Mukhtyar Shah, S/o
Ramjan Shah and subsequently, when this incident was
brought to the notice of the present petitioner-Faima,
w/o Ikrar by the victim, the victim was taken to some
quack and was allegedly administered some medicine for
miscarriage.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that incident allegedly came to the knowledge
1
2025:UHC:2786
of the family of the victim-minor “X” on 30.03.2025 but
the FIR was lodged belatedly on 12.04.2025. He further
argued that as per the first information report, the
allegation against the petitioner was that the victim was
taken by force by putting her to the threats. He also
argued that when the incident was in the knowledge of
the family members of the victim, there is no question of
taking her by force.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits
that the allegations against the petitioner are very
serious and instead of intimating the police, the
petitioner connived with the family to get the miscarriage
of the victim done by administering some medicine to her
through some quack. This nature of offence alleged
against the petitioner is very serious, therefore, the State
Counsel requested that the writ petition be dismissed at
the threshold itself.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the first information report and the
writ petition, this Court is not convinced with the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner. Prima facie, the offences alleged against the
petitioner are made out. Hence, the petitioner does not
deserve any relief from this Court at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-
limine.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
17.04.2025
AK
2
[ad_1]
Source link