Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2368 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anjali Patel And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mithilesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- GA,Shri Chandra
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 is taken on record.
Heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shri Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 25.1.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 101 of 2018 under sections 366 I.P.C., police station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 are major aged about 26 years and 28 years respectively as per high school certificate. There was love affair between the petitioner no. 1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 26.1.2018 in Arya Samaj, Chowk, Prayag, Allahabad, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 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 petitioners 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 counsel for respondent no. 3 and 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 counsel for respondent no. 3 and learned AGA have not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt. Anjali Patelwas 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 petitioners have 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 :- 26.2.2018 Shiraz