Allahabad High Court
Rituraj Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 10 January, 2020
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar, Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 218 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rituraj Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.
The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking quashing of the FIR dated 27.3.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0085 of 2019, under Section 363, 366 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Lohata, District Varanasi.
The FIR has been lodged by complainant-respondent No.4 who is father of petitioner No.1 Rituraj Singh. The allegation in the FIR is that his daughter who was aged 17 years at the time of incident, while going to take her B.A. Part II examination on 25.3.2019 was enticed away by one Suraj Singh who is petitioner No.2.
Both the petitioners are present before us. Their High School certificates have been annexed as annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition, according to which date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 31.7.2001 and she is just a few months short in completing 18 years on the date of incident and date of birth of petitioner No.2 is 10.5.1997 and therefore, he is also major on the date of incident.
We realize that petitioner No.1 was minor by just a few months short in becoming 18 years of age. She is a student of B.A. Part II and on being questioned by us, we find that she could take decisions for herself. She categorically stated that she wants to live with the petitioner No.2 and does not want to live with her father-respondent No.4 as there was family pressure on her to get her married to someone in December, 2019 and which was not accepted to her. It is further stated that the petitioners have solemnized their marriage according to their own free will.
The Supreme Court in its judgement passed in Civil Appeal No. 4532 of 2018 (Suhani and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) has held as under:
"Considering the findings of physical, dental and radiological examinations we are of the considered opinion that the bone age of petitioner Miss. Suhani is between 19 - 24 years. In view of the conclusion arrived at by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner no 1 is a major and the High Court was not correct in directing her to stay in Nari Niketan, Allahabad. The petitioner no. 1 admits the factum of marriage, before us. Therefore, she is entitled to accompany the petitioner no. 2, who is her husband.
In view of our conclusion that she is an adult and she had gone voluntarily with the petitioner no.2 and entered into wedlock, the criminal proceedings initiated under section 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Court against the petitioner no. 2 stands quashed. We have passed this order of quashing the proceedings to do complete justice."
Considering the totality of circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Suhani (supra) as well as the fact that petitioner No.1was only a few months short in attaining 18 years of age on the date of incident and has now attained 18 years of age and she wants to live with petitioner No.2 of her own free will, we quash the FIR dated 27.3.2019 as aforesaid.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 10.1.2020 P.P.