Allahabad High Court
Pooja And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 16 December, 2019
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar, Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25555 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pooja And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avanish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Avinash Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel appearing of the respondent no.3-Informant and learned AGA for the State.
The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking quashing of the FIR dated 06.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 466 of 2019 under Sections 366, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Jalesar, District Etah.
As per the version of the FIR the daughter of the Complainant, Pooja aged about 25 years was married to one Rahul on 19.11.2019 and on 29.11.2019 she came to her mother's house from her matrimonial house. Therefore, on 5.12.2019 at about 6:00 PM her daughter went to purchase some medicine where Gaurav met her and enticed her away. It is further alleged that the father and elder brother of Gaurav were also involved in enticing her daughter.
We have perused the documents on record. Copy of the marksheet of High School issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh of the petitioner no. 1 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, wherein the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 has been mentioned as 09.12.1991. Copy of the Marriage registration certificate of the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit in which the date of birth of the petitioner no. 2 is shown as 25.09.1991. Thus it is amply clear that both the petitioners are major.
The petitioner no.1-Smt. Pooja and the petitioner no.2-Gaurav Kumar are present in the court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners are major and they have solemnized their marriage according to Hindu ritual. Copy of the Arya Samaj Certificate as well as Marriage Registration Certificate has been filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit.
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."
In the present case, it is not disputed between the parties that both the petitioners are major. We have examined the girl petitioner no. 1 and on being specifically asked, as to whether she had gone with the petitioner no. 2 out of her own free will, the petitioner no.1 very candidly stated that she had gone with the petitioner no.2 out of her own free will and the petitioner no.2 has not used any force or coercion on her.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that since the petitioner no.1 was in her custody at the time of incident, therefore, she lodged the impugned FIR. We enquired that whether any FIR has been lodged by Rahul, who is stated to be the husband of petitioner no.1, learned counsel replied in the negative and stated that no FIR has been lodged by the husband. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.3, it is stated that marriage of petitioner no.1 was solemnized with Rahul on 19.11.2019 and the marriage card is also attached to the affidavit as Annexure-1. It is also denied that the petitioner no.1 Pooja has solemnised any marriage with Gaurav, petitioner no.2.
So far as, judicial proceedings are concerned, it is immaterial as to whether the petitioner no.1 Pooja has solemnized marriage with petitioner no.2 Gaurav Kumar as long as she is an adult and wants to live with him out of her own free will.
Considering the facts and 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 both the petitioners are major and the victim/girl has married with the petitioner no. 2 out of her own volition, we therefore, quash the impugned F.I.R.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2019 Kirti