Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2392 of 2019 Petitioner :- Aradhna Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Furquan Ahmad (Alvi) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri Hari Prakash Tiwari, Advocate, has filed filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri F.A.Alvi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hari Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, Sri Jai Narain, 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 11.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 5 of 2019, under Section 366 I.P.C.,P.S. Pawai, District Azamgarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 and petitioner no. 2 both are major aged about 22 years and 23 years respectively as per their High School Certificate, copies of which have been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He further submits that there was love affair between the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 4.1.2019 according to Hindu Rituals in the State of Maharashtra, copy of their marriage certificate 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 as well as learned A.G.A. 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 as well as learned A.G.A. have not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt. Aradhna Yadav 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 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.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 29.1.2019/NS