Court No. - 2
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16219 of 2019 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Om Prakash-I, 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 petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 14.5.2019 registered as case crime no.257 of 2019 under sections 363, 366 I.P.C., police station Shahganj, District Agra.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 have married each other as both are major. The petitioner no. 3 is the cousin brother of the petitioner no. 1 and cousin devar of petitioner no. 2. The respondent no. 4 has falsely implicated the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 3. The marriage of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 was solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, Greater Noida, Gautambudh Nagar, registration certificate is at page-27.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the first information report and submitted that as per the FIR, the petitioner no 2 victim is a minor girl, hence quashing of FIR should be refused.
Since, petitioner no. 2 has stated that she has married petitioner no. 1 of her own free will but the age of petitioner no. 2 is disputed. In the first information report the age of petitioner no. 2 has been mentioned as 17 years while according to Aadhar Care, photocopy of which is on record, her date of birth is 01.01.1999.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the kidnapped girl shall be produced before the court concerned, it is directed that in case the alleged kidnapped girl Km. Vandana appears/produced before the court of learned C.J.M. concerned within 20 days from today and moves an application for her medical examination for recording her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate concerned shall fix a date for the said purpose, on that date the first informant & officer in charge of the police station concerned shall be summoned, she shall be produced before C.M.O. concerned by the concerned police officer for her medical examination thereafter she shall be produced before CJM concerned for recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. the same shall be recorded on the application filed by the I.O./Officer in charge of the police station concerned, till then no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners. In default of it, it shall be open to the police authority concerned to arrest the petitioners, if she is found major and does not support the FIR version, the petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. In case the alleged kidnapped girl appears to be minor or if she is major but supports the prosecution version, it shall be open to the police authority to arrest the petitioners. In case the petitioners approach the S.S.P. concerned to provide the security for the above mentioned purpose, the same shall be provided to them.
It is further directed that issue of custody of the alleged kidnapped girl shall also be decided by the CJM concerned in accordance with law.
With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) Order Date :- 11.6.2019 AU