Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4469 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Rashmi Bi And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Naiyar Masroof Siddiqui
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Sri R.K.Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N.M.Siddiqui, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent no.4, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 10.1.2018 registered as Case Crime No.17 of 2018, under Section 366 I.P.C., Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 is a major girl aged about 20 years as per the High School Certificate, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and petitioner no.2 is also a major boy aged about 21 years as per the Pan Card, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He further submits that there was love affair between the petitioner no.1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage (Nikah) on 9.1.2018 befoe the Kazi, namely, Sarfaraj Ahmad Maszid Gaus Nagar, Allahabad,copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-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 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 counsel for the caveator as well as 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 counsel for the caveator as well as learned AGA have not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix-Smt. Rashmi Bi 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.
(Krishna Pratap Singh,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 22.2.2018/NS