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