Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Smt Vaishnavi Payak And Others vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 June, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17529 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Vaishnavi Payak And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Chandra Prajapati Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Nigam
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri U. C. Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
A short-counter affidavit has been filed today by Sri Ashok Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and the same has been taken on record.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners indicating about the criminal antecedents of the petitioner no.2, who is the husband of the petitioner no.1.
The instant petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. dated 19.06.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0290 of 2019, under Section 366, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Mauranipur, District- Jhansi.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is major and has performed marriage with petitioner no.2, out of her own free will. Petitioner no.1 and petitioner no. 2 are also present before this Court. It is submitted that the respondent no.4, who is father of the petitioner no.1 has lodged the First Information Report with absolutely false and vague allegations against the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 that they had abducted his daughter. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are leading happy marital life.
Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners and has contended that the writ petition has been filed concealing the material fact that the petitioner no.2 has no criminal antecedent whereas he has two criminal cases to his credit.
On confrontation, this fact has been examined and it emerged out that it has deliberately been concealed by both the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 who have sworn the affidavit of the writ petition by stating that the petitioner no.2 has no criminal history, as such the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer may be directed to get the statement of the petitioner no. 1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate.
Today the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed supplementary affidavit tendering unqualified apology that due to inadvertent mistake he could not mention about the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no. 2 while filing the writ petition. In one case he has been acquitted by the trial court while in the other, charge sheet has been submitted and the trial is pending. This affidavit has come on record only after learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has brought to this Court that the petitioner no. 2 has concealed about his criminal antecedent and as such this supplementary affidavit has been filed deliberately to escape from the consequences of criminal contempt proceeding.
In view of the glaring misconduct on the part of the petitioner no.2 for filing his own affidavit in a lackadaisical manner in order to inveigle the Court to get favourable order, the petitioner no. 2 (Vijay Soni) is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
1.50 Lacs (one lac fifty thousand only) in favour of petitioner no.1 (Smt. Vaishnavi Payak) for a term of five years so as to maintain safety and security with regard to the petitioner no.1 who is under the dominion of petitioner no.2.
However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA, we direct that the investigating officer shall move an application before the C.J.M. concerned for recording the statement of the petitioner no.1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., within a period of three weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order and he shall record the same. The investigating officer shall provide her full protection for safety and security of the petitioner no.1.
It is further directed that the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 shall not be arrested in the aforesaid crime till the submission of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, subject to restraint that they shall cooperate with the investigation.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Order Date :- 28.6.2019 V.S.Singh
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Smt Vaishnavi Payak And Others vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
28 June, 2019
Judges
  • Naheed Ara Moonis
Advocates
  • Umesh Chandra Prajapati