Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18429 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt.Akanksha Gautam And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
As per office report dated 06.10.2017 and 27.02.2018 notice issued to respondent no. 4 but the respondent no. 3 has not responded to the notice, hence notice is deemed sufficient.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Ibha Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 14.06.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 0616 of 2017, under Section 366 I.P.C., Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Sahar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are major aged about 23 years as per high school certificate and 25 years respectively. There was love affair between the petitioner no.1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 20.03.2016 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Mestan Road, Kanpur, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. He next argued that the petitioner no.1 had voluntarily left her parental home and entered into matrimonial alliance with petitioner no.2 and that she was major, it cannot be said that any cognizable offence against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 is made out, hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are major and they have voluntarily married, then to conceive in view of the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 (Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.P) decided on 02.08.2013), that, offence has been committed under Section 366 I.P.C., cannot be approved of.
Per contra learned AGA submitted that the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned AGA has not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt. Akanksha Gautam was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner no. 2.
In view of the above, it cannot be said that the petitioner no. 2 has committed any cognizable offence. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioners in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed.
There shall however be no order as to costs.
(Krishna Pratap Singh,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.) Order Date :- 28.2.2018 A.K.Verma