In a matter under Article 227, the court rejected the petitioner's plea to quash orders and granted custody of the victim daughter, noting she had become major and feared for her life with her parents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 17
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8955 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Shankar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 3.3.2017 passed by the C.J.M. Ghaziabad as well as the order dated 06.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2017 (Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P.). Further it is prayed that a direction may be issued in a nature of Mandamus commanding the Courts below to provide the custody of the victim girl Km. Usha to the petitioner.
The C.J.M., Ghaziabad has passed the order in case crime No. 56 of 2017 (State Vs. Raju @ Kale and others) under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., P.S. Loni wherein the investigating officer had moved an application stating that the victim was presented before court from Nari Niketan, Meerut and prayed that suitable orders may be passed with regard to her custody. Simultaneously an application was also moved before court below by complainant, Ram Kumar (father of the victim) alleging that the victim was minor who was studying in class XII in J.P. Girls Inter College, Ghaziabad. Her examination was to commence from 16.03.2017. For ensuring proper education of his daughter, he requested the court to release the victim in his custody.
The impugned order reveals that an application was also moved by the victim through her counsel stating therein that she had become major. She apprehended threat to her life from the side of the parents and in case she was given in custody of her parents, she could be killed.
Considering all the facts, court below had passed the impugned order directing that victim be kept in Nari Niketan in accordance with the earlier order.
In the meantime, the learned counsel for Raju @ Kale with whom the victim has solemnized her marriage has also put his appearance. He has presented before court an order of the Court below dated 2.1.2018 passed by the C.J.M., Ghaziabad in
Crime No. 56 of 2017 ( State Vs. Raju @ Kale and others) under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. P.S. Loni in which the learned court below has passed an order to the effect that the I.O. shall take victim ( Km. Usha) to Nari Niketan, Meerut and in view of her having become major, she would be made free to go anywhere she wishes.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time when the occurrence took place, the victim was minor and the marriage of the victim with accused Raju @ Kale was illegal/voidable, he should be permitted to challenge the order passed by the court below dated 2.1.2018.
This court is of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner may challenge the said order independently.
The court shall confine itself to the validity of the impugned order dated 3.3.2017 only.
It is on record by way of order of the court below dated 2.1.2018 that the victim has become major and according to that the court below has passed an order to the effect that after being returned to Nari Niketan, she would be made free to go anywhere she wishes.
In view of above order, the impugned order has become infructuous. Moreover in the present petition, the prayer was made that the custody be provided of the victim to the petitioner. The said prayer cannot be granted because the victim stands major and also she has expressed her apprehension in statement given before court below that she apprehends threat to her life from parents.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, this petition deserves to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 4.1.2018 A. Mandhani
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's prayer for custody of the victim girl should be granted given that she is now major.
Whether the pending petition under Article 227 should dispose the matter directly or allow independent challenge to the order dated 2.1.2018.
Ram Kumar
State Of U.P.
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
