Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19526 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sapna @ Muskan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent and Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State.
An affidavit of compliance has been filed by the learned A.G.A., which is taken on record.
On 19.07.2019, this Court has passed the following order:
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent and Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as per the FIR, petitioner no.1 is aged about 21 years to which learned counsel for the private respondent stated that as per academic record victim is minor and he may be allowed some time to bring on record, her academic record.
Learned AGA is directed to get the written report which was lodged by respondent no.3 in order to ascertain whether the age which has been mentioned in it is 21 years or not.
List this case on 30.7.2019.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR dated 12.7.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0237 of 2019 under sections 366 I.P.C. police station Haldaur, District Biznor.
In compliance of the order of this Court dated 19.07.2019, Sub Inspector of Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor has filed his personal affidavit annexing therewith the certified copy of the original written report given by the complainant/respondent no.3 at the concerned Police Station, wherein the age of the victim has been mentioned as 21 years. At the time of arguing the case on 19.07.2019, counsel for the respondent no.3 has vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the victim is a minor according to her academic record and he has tried to demonstrate from an Academic record i.e school leaving certificate that the victim is a minor being her date of birth as 15.08.2003 and the respondent no.2 has wrongly mentioned the age of the victim to be 21 years. From the perusal of the said school leaving certificate shows that it has been issued on 18.07.2019 i.e. one day before passing of the order dated 19.07.2019 by this Court, which shows that the respondent no.3 is falsely deposing before this Court through his counsel about the date of birth of the victim. Though, he has himself mentioned and admitted the age of the victim as 21 years in the impugned FIR which stands verified from his tehrir / written report submitted to respondent no.2 Station House Officer, Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor. Thus, the allegation levelled against the respondent no.2 S.H.O. of concerned police station by the respondent no.3 is false and baseless. Moreover, if the respondent no.3 was having in his possession the school leaving certificate of class-4th of the victim then it is quite natural that he would have mentioned the age of the victim as minor and also produced the same before this Court on 19.07.2019 itself, meaning thereby, he got the same prepared to manipulate the age of the victim to be minor with oblique motive, which is an afterthought and shows that the respondent no.3 is not coming with clean hands before this Court.
Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case that the respondent no. 3 Riyajuddin is misleading the Court regarding date of birth of his daughter, let an exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- be imposed on him, which shall be deposited by him within one month from today in the court of C.J.M. concerned, which shall be given to the Legal Service Cell of the District, failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 12.07.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 0237 of 2019, under Section 366 of IPC, P.S. Haldaur, District Bijnor,.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per FIR, the age of the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 is 21 years and the petitioner no.2 is also a major boy. There was love affair between the petitioner no.1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 09.7.2019 as per Hindu customs. 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.2 is made out and 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 respondent no.3 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 respondent no.3 has tried to demonstrate that the prosecutrix Smt.Sapana @ Muskan was minor on the date of the incident, but his argument is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as in the FIR itself the victim is found to be major aged about 21 years and it cannot be said that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner no.2, in view of the above it cannot be said that the petitioner no.2 has 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.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed and the are hereby quashed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 30.7.2019 A. Tripathi