Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6961 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jyoti Devi And 04 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K Singh Gaharwar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hari Krishna Tripathi
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yogesh Tiwari, holding brief of Sri Hari Krishna Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Sri Ashish Pandey, 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 28.02.2018 registered as Case Crime No.68 of 2018 under Sections 366 and 368 IPC and 3 (1) (IIB) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Poonch, District Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the victim petitioner No.1 has been recovered and at this time she is in the custody of Police. It has next submitted that prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 is major as per F.I.R. and petitioner no.2 is also major aged about 24 years as per Aadhar Card. There was love affair between the petitioner no.1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 27.02.2018 in temple in the presence of some relatives of petitioner No.2 and photographs of this marriage has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. He next submitted that petitioners want to get register their marriage before the Sub-registrar as per rules. He next argued that the petitioner no.1 had voluntarily left her parental home and entered into matrimonial alliance with petitioner no.2 and when 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 Jyoti Devi was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner no.2 to 5.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact, the victim petitioner No.1 is set at liberty to go in accordance with her own wishes.
In view of the above, it cannot be said that the petitioner nos.2 to 5 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 :- 28.3.2018 Pr/-