Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7868 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Jyoti Shukla And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Munna Babu,Jaya Nath Patel Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pandey Balkrishna
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Sri Munna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Satish Shukla, holding brief of Pandey Balkrishna, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Sri Jitendra Singh, 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 14.3.2018, registered as case crime no.48 of 2018, u/s 363, 366 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Machhalishahar, district Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are major aged about 20 years and 23 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 20.3.2018 in Arya Samaj Mandir. 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.2 is made out and 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 the respondent no.4 as well as 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 the respondent no.4 as well as learned AGA has not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt. Jyoti Shukla 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 nos.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 :- 30.3.2018 Gaurav