Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 38037 of 2018 Petitioner :- Gyanvati And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raja Singh,Dharam Raj Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raj Karan Yadav
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav holding brief of Sri Raja Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri N.K. Tiwari, 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 16.12.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0090 of 2018, under section 366 I.P.C., police station Marka, District Banda.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no. 1 is major aged about 18 years as per high school certificate. There was love affair between the petitioner no. 1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 17.12.2018 in Arya Samaj Mandir Krishna Nagar (Prayag), 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 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. Gyanvati was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner nos. 2 to 5, 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.
(Raj Beer Singh,J) (Ramesh Sinha,J.) Order Date :- 21.12.2018 Manoj