Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24941 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kajal Saini And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrit Shanker Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Sri Shiva Tiwari files his Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioners today. The same is taken on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is also taken on record.
Heard Sri Shiva Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking quashing of the FIR dated 26.11.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 880 of 2019, under Section 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura.
As per the version of the FIR the daughter of the informant- respondent no.4, Kajal Saini went to Kishori Raman Balika Mahavidhyalaya and was to return at 3.00 pm. but she did not return and on enquiry, the informant came to know that she had been kept in the custody of petitioner no.2- Umesh Saini.
We have perused the documents on record. Copy of the marksheet of High School issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. of the petitioner no. 1 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, wherein the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 has been mentioned as 17.05.1999. Copy of the marksheet of High School issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. of the petitioner no. 2 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner no.2 has been mentioned as 25.10.1991. Thus it is amply clear that both the petitioners are major.
The petitioner no.1-Smt Kajal Saini and the petitioner no.2- Umesh Saini are present in the court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners are major and they have solemnized their marriage according to their own free will.
We have examined the girl petitioner no.1 by putting question to her and she stated that she wants to live with her husband petitioner no. 2. She has also deposed that she is fully mature to take decision by herself.
The Supreme Court in its judgement passed in Civil Appeal No. 4532 of 2018 (Suhani and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) has held as under:
"Considering the findings of physical, dental and radiological examinations we are of the considered opinion that the bone age of petitioner Miss. Suhani is between 19 - 24 years. In view of the conclusion arrived at by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner no 1 is a major and the High Court was not correct in directing her to stay in Nari Niketan, Allahabad. The petitioner no. 1 admits the factum of marriage, before us. Therefore, she is entitled to accompany the petitioner no. 2, who is her husband.
In view of our conclusion that she is an adult and she had gone voluntarily with the petitioner no. 2 and entered into wedlock, the criminal proceedings initiated under section 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Court against the petitioner no. 2 stands quashed. We have passed this order of quashing the proceedings to do complete justice."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Suhani (supra) as well as the fact that both the petitioners are major and the victim/girl has married with the petitioner no. 2 out of her own volition, we therefore, quash the impugned F.I.R.
The writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 16.12.2019 N Tiwari