Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Sri Abhinav Singh holding brief of Sri Ramakar Shukla, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 4 which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Piyush Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Abhinav Singh holding brief of Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Arunendra, 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 petitioners, namely, Smt. Priya Tiwari @ Priya Singh and Nitish Kumar with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report No. 029 of 2021 under section 366 I.P.C., police station Musafirkhana, District Amethi.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no. 1 admittedly as per the F.I.R. as well as high school certificate which has been annexed as annexure-2 to the writ petition, is a major girl aged about 20 years as in the high school certificate her date of birth has been mentioned as 13.07.2001. There was love affair between the petitioner no. 1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 03.02.2021 in Arya Samaj Shivpuri Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow, 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 petitioners 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 respondent no. 4 and 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. 4 and learned AGA have not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt. Priya Tiwari @ Priya Singh 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.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 shiraz