Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14850 of 2019 Petitioner :- Teena And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Rathore Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Charan Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
In compliance of the order dated 28.5.2019, the case was taken up at 3.00 P.M and the report of the CMO, Prayagraj has been produced before this Court in a sealed cover, which has been opened by the Bench Secretary of this Court and the same has been perused by this Court. As per the report of the CMO, Prayagraj, the age of the girl Teena is 19 years, even as per the opinion of the Radiologist, the radiological age of the girl is about 19 years. The said report is taken on record.
On being asked ki ^^vkidk uke D;k gS**] she informed the Court ki ^^esjk uke टीना gS**A On being asked ki "मंगल िसिंह dkSu gaS**] she informed the Court ki "मगं ल िसिंह मेरे िपिता gaS**] On being asked ki ^^अक्षय कु मार dkSu gaS**] she informed the Court ki ^^अक्षय कु मार esjs ifr gaS**A On being asked ki ^^D;k bl fjV fiVh'ku ds ,QhMsfcM ij vkids gLrk{kj gaS**] she informed the Court ki ^^gkaW bl fjV fiVh'ku ds ,QhMsfcM ij eSus gh gLrk{kj fd;k gS**A On being further asked ki ^^vkidh mez fdruh gaS**] she informed the Court ki ^^esjh mez 20 lky gS**A On being further asked ki ^^bl vnkyr esa vki viuh ethZ ls vkbZ gaS ;k vkidks dksbZ Mjk /kedk djds y;k gaS**] she informed the Court ki ^^bl vnkyr esa eS viuh ethZ ls vkbZ gwaW eq>s dksbZ Hkh Mjk /kedk djds ugh y;k gaS**A In view of the statement repeatedly made by the girl before this Court and in view of the opinion of the doctor that she is 19 years of age and the manner in which she has faced the query of this Court and keeping in view the law as laid down in the case of Sachin Pawar v. State of U.P. Passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 decided on 2.8.2013 and the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow Bench in the case of Vishal Jaiswal and another v. State of U.P. and others passed on 26.8.2016 in Misc. Bench No. 10724 of 2016, Shaheen Parveen and another v. State of U.P. And others passed in writ petition no. 3519 (M/B) of 2015, Basanti and another vs State of UP and others, passed in Misc. Bench No.18314 of 2016 (decided on 16.9.2016), Vinod Kumar vs State of UP and others passed in Misc. Bench No.28150 of 2016 (decided on 13.2.2017) and by the Apex Court in the cases of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. And another; 2011(6) SCC 396 and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 231 of 2010, no purpose would be served in permitting the investigation to continue in pursuance of impugned FIR and in permitting the police authorities to harass the couple under the garb of fair investigation. It would be nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned FIR registered as Case Crime No. 247 of 2019 u/s 363, 366 IPC P.S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar is hereby quashed.
Consequences to follow.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Puspendra