Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18410 of 2017 Petitioner :- Najiya Bano And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Nigam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Chitranshu Srivastav
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Sri Chitranshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is not present though the matter is called out in the revised list.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 1.8.217 registered as Case Crime No.114 of 2017 under Section 366 IPC, Police Station Dhata, District Fatehpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are major aged about 20 years and 35 years respectively as per Adhar Card. There was love affair between the petitioner no.1 and 2 and they both have performed Nikahnama on 03.08.2017 as per Muslim Rituals, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure- 5 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 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 Smt.Najiya Bano 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 no.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 :- 28.2.2018 Pr/-