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

Vikas Gautam @ Vikas Kumar And Others vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|22 February, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4704 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vikas Gautam @ Vikas Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chinta Prasad,Bhole Ram Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mool Chandra Maurya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the first information report dated 22.1.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 14 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Pavara, district Jaunpur.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 2 who is the daughter of the respondent no.3 has performed marriage out of her own free will with the petitioner no. 1. The petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are relatives of the petitioner no.1. The first information report lodged by the respondent no. 3 with absolutely false and vague allegations that she was forcibly enticed away by the petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4. In fact they are living happily as husband and wife, hence prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioners.
The learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the petitioner no. 2 Soni Maurya is minor who is also suffering from brain tumour and she has been forcibly enticed away by the petitioners. There is no sanctity of the marriage in the eye of law as she admittedly a minor girl. No document of marriage or age proof has been appended along with the petition. The petitioner no. 2 is present before this court. The respondent no. 3 who is the father of the petitioner no. 2 and mother are present before this court and willing to take her back, hence appropriate order may be passed.
From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioners therefore, we do not find any cogent or convincing reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the petitioner no. 2, namely, Sony Maurya be given in the custody of the respondent no.
3. The respondent no. 3 is also directed that the petitioner no. 2 Sony Maurya be not harassed in any manner.
However, we direct the petitioner no. 2 to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within two weeks from today, who shall get her medical examination done within a week thereafter by the CMO concerned to ascertain her age. The age certificate will contain self attested photograph of Sony Maurya, the petitioner no. 2. Thereafter the I.O. concerned shall record her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also move an application before the C.J.M. concerned for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The investigating officer shall provide her full protection and shall not be harassed in any manner.
Photostat copies of the aforesaid statements along with medical report shall be forwarded to the court of C.J.M. concerned within a week thereafter.
It is further directed that the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 shall not be arrested in the aforesaid crime till the submission of the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C, subject to restraint that they shall cooperate with the investigation.
So far as the petitioner no. 1, namely, Vikas Gautam @ Vikas Kumar is concerned, he is directed to surrender and appear before the court below within 30 days from today and in case he apples for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.
With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 Shahnawaz
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

Vikas Gautam @ Vikas Kumar And Others vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
22 February, 2019
Judges
  • Naheed Ara Moonis
Advocates
  • Chinta Prasad Bhole Ram