Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2641 of 2004 Applicant :- Ram Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, Advocate for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Applicants have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash charge sheet as well as proceedings in Case No. 1369 of 2002, under Sections 363, 366, 368 IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.
3. The girl herself has been examined by Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has given her statement as under:
^^eSaus 1994 esa gkbZLdwy dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh FkhA esjh tUe frfFk 23-1-1979 gSA
2- eSus 25 Qjojh 2001 dks LosPNk ls iq"dj vxzoky vkRet jkedqekj vxzoky fuoklh U;w ys[kjkt uxj vyhx<+ ds lkFk Vhdkjke eafnj vyhx<+ esa fookn fgUnw fof/k ds vuqlkj fd;k FkkA fookg ds le; iq"dj dh mez 24 o"kZ FkhA
3- lqjs'k dqekj esjs pkpk gSaA
4- fnukad 29-1-2002 dks eSa 1-30 cts vijkg~u viuh ethZ ls iq"dj vxzoky ds lkFk x;h FkhA ge ;gkaW ls esjB x;s FksA esjB ls tEew x;s ogkaW gksVy esa jgsA ge yksx 29-4-2002 rd tEew eas gh jgsA
5- geus 'kknh igys dj yh Fkh ijUrq geus vius vius ?kj eas crk;k ughAa
6- iq"dj ds firk us eq>s iq= o/kq ds :i eas lqudj lR;kiu fd;kA** Lohdkj dj fy;k gSA “I passed the High-school examination in 1994. My date of birth is 23.01.1979.
2. I voluntarily married to Shri Pushkar Agarwal s/o Ramkumar Agarwal r/o New Lekhraj Nagar, Aligarh at Teekaram Temple in Aligarh as per Hindu customs and rituals. At the time of marriage, Pushkar was aged 24 years.
3. Suresh Kumar is chacha (younger brother of father).
4. On 29.01.2002 at 1:30 p.m., I, of my own volition, went along with Pushkar Agarwal. We had gone from here to Meerut, and from Meerut to Jammu, and we stayed there in a hotel. We remained in Jammu till 29.04.2002.
5. We had tied nuptial knot earlier, but had not told our families.
6. Pushkar's father has accepted me as putra-vadhu (son's wife). Heard and verified.”
4. In view of above statement it is evident that offences under Sections 363, 366, 368 IPC apparently are not made out.
5. In view thereof, application is allowed. Charge sheet as well as proceedings in Case No. 1369 of 2002 are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 AK