Allowed

Sushmita Pal and 2 Others v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2018CRLP/10013/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an exemption in a matrimonial writ petition where the victim is a petitioner. No coercive action is permitted until the police report is submitted, mandating fair and expeditious investigation within three months while preserving respondents' liberty to recall.

What did the court decide?

Exemption allowed; no coercive action till police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C.; investigation to be completed within three months.

Sushmita Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 3… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10013 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sushmita Pal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Lal Ram Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.

¶5

Exemption application is allowed.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR registered as Case Crime No.225 of 2018, under Sections 363, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police StationGhatampur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that victim is petitioner no.1 - and accused is petitioner no. 2 are major and they have also solemnized their marriage and they are living happily as husband and wife; there is a joint affidavit of both the petitioners in support of the present writ petition; as per the adhar card the age of petitioner no. 1 is 18 years; as per high school marksheet her date of birth is 13.02.2000; even as per FIR age of the petitioner no.1 is 19 years; and as per marriage registration certificate the age of petitioner no.1 is 18 years, copy of which is annexed at 38 of the affidavit.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the law as laid down in the case of Sachin Pawar v. State of U.P. Passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 decided on 2.8.2013 , no purpose would be served in keeping the present matter pending any further before this Court. Accordingly, the present writ petition is being disposed off finally with the following directions:-

¶10

(a) Till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. no coercive action shall be taken or initiated against the petitioners, however they shall participate and cooperate with the investigation;

¶11

(b) Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the concerned SSP/SP through the office of Government Advocate of this Court, who shall personally look into the matter and thereafter shall ensure that fair investigation is done in accordance with law without any whims, caprice or personal notion of morality;

¶12

(c) The police authorities are directed to investigate the matter fairly expeditiously and submit the report as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in accordance with the law preferably within a period of three months from today keeping in view the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow Bench in the case of Vishal Jaiswal and another v. State of U.P. and others passed on

¶13

26.8.2016 in Misc. Bench No. 10724 of 2016 and Shaheen Parveen and another v. State of U.P. And others passed in writ petition no. 3519 (M/B) of 2015 and by the Apex Court in the cases of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. And another; 2011(6) SCC 396 and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 231 of 2010.

¶14

(d) Liberty is also given to the respondents that if anyone of them has any grievance with this order, he/she may move recall application in the present proceedings itself;

¶15

(e) It is also being made clear that if the investigation has been completed and the police has already submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the present order will not be given effect to.

¶16

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed off finally.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.4.2018 Radhika

Sushmita Pal and 2 Others v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushmita Pal and 2 Others v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Mohd. Ajmal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Mustafa Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Shahzad and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Imran Sheikh @ Arman and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Padam Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others