Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9432 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Ruby Yadav Alias Ruba And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Singh,Manvendra Nath Singh,Mohd. Khalid,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohammad Khalid
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record.
Instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 3.4.2018, registered as Case Crime No. 0209 of 208, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC at P.S. Kotwali Kasganj, District Kanshiram Nagar.
Allegation in the FIR is that minor daughter of the informant, namely, Ruba, aged about 15 years, has been enticed away by the petitioner no. 2 (Sukhveer Singh Yadav).
On 13.4.2018, by relying upon the date of birth of the victim recorded in her Adhar Card as 1.1.2000 and her statement made before the Court, an interim order was passed by this Court.
A short counter affidavit has been filed by the Investigating Officer on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3, stating therein that the victim has been found minor, and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has supported the prosecution case and has levelled allegations against the accused-petitioner no. 2, and has also stated that her statement before this Court was not voluntary as she was threatened.
Whether the statement of the victim before this Court was voluntary or not, is not required to be ascertained in view of the material brought on record that the victim is minor. Medical examination report of the victim suggests that she is aged about 16 years, and the educational certificate discloses her date of birth as 29.8.2002.
Entry of date of birth in Adhar Card is not conclusive for determining the age of a child victim because age of child victim is to be determined on the same principles that are applicable for determination of age of juvenile in conflict with law. (See: Mahadeo vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 637; Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 623; State of M.P. vs. Anoop Singh, (2015) 7 SCC 773).
Under the circumstances, the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be accepted. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 RavindraKSingh