Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 30313 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pooja And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Chandel Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
As per the office report dated 27.11.2019, though notice is said to have been sent to respondent no.4 but he has not responded to the said notice, hence, service of notice upon him is deemed to be sufficient.
Heard Sri Prabhakar Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gaurav Pratap 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 01.05.2018, registered as case crime No.86 of 2018, under Section 366 I.P.C., Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the High School Certificate the prosecutrix/petitioner no. 1 is a major girl aged about 21 years. The petitioner no. 2 is also major aged about 32 years as per the Adhar Card. He submits that there was love affair between the petitioner no. 1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 01.05.2018 at Arya Samaj Mandir Greater Noida and thereafter they also got their marriage registered. The copy of their marriage certificate as well as marriage registration certificate are annexed as Annexure-3 &4 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-Pooja 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 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.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 28.11.2019/NS