Allahabad High Court
Aditya Pratap Singh @ Nikhil Kumar @ ... vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 8 May, 2023
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98872-DB Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6536 of 2023 Petitioner :- Aditya Pratap Singh @ Nikhil Kumar @ Gurudeo Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdish Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Jagdish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 13.07.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 0211 of 2022, under Section 366 IPC, Police Station Gola, District Gorakhpur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the FIR itself it is clear that the victim is aged about 22 years, therefore, no offence as alleged has been made out. By drawing attention to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it was submitted that she had admitted that she had willingly married the applicant and she was five-month pregnant on the date of recording her statement. So far as the earlier marriage is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner got divorce from his first wife Rina Devi on 26.07.2018 by the judicial order passed by Family Court, Deoria, therefore, no offence as alleged in the FIR has been made.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and submitted that from reading of the present first information report in toto it is clear that the fact of earlier marriage was not disclosed by the petitioner to the victim and he got married and now the victim left the petitioner and asked him to teach a lesson.
Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 8.5.2023 Nitendra