Allowed

Rubi Jahan and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2018CRLP/11195/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an FIR under Section 366 IPC regarding a major girl and her husband. Relying on independent age evidence, the Court held no purpose was served in proceeding with the case. It further directed the State to ensure the safety of the petitioners against threats from the victim's family.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR dated 08.04.2018 under Section 366 IPC is quashed. The Court directed the State to ensure the safety of the petitioners and prevent interference by the victim's family.

Rubi Jahan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11195 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rubi Jahan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Umair Mahmood Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jafar Abbas learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 and learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the victim herself is petitioner no. 1 and the accused is petitioner no. 2; there is joint affidavit filed in support of the writ petition; as per Aadhar Card age of the victim is 25 years as per FIR the age of the victim is 24 years and as per high school mark sheet date of birth of the victim is 02.08.1993; that both are major and have solemnized marriage out of their own sweet and free will without any fear, threat or coercion and they are living happily as husband and wife. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 - Sachin Pawar Vs. State of U.P., decided on 02.08.2013 . The contention is that the allegations as made in the first information report are false and baseless.

¶7

Learned counsel for the complainant Sri Zafar Abbas has raised a number of objection with regard to the conduct of petitioner no. 2 by saying that earlier he had also solemnized marriage with another girl from which wedlock he has a child also.

¶8

Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are present before this Court and they have identified each other and also they have been identified by their counsel on the basis of documents produced in his chamber. With the consent of the parties, the Court now proceeds to examine petitioner no. 1.

¶9

On being asked from petitioner no. 1 'aap ka naam kya hai', she informs the Court "Rubi"; on being further asked 'aapke pita ka kya naam hai' she informs the Court 'Shahid Hussain' on being asked 'aap ki umar kitni hai' she informs '25 years' on being asked 'aapne kisse shaadi ki hai' she informed 'Sartaj se' on being asked 'kya shaadi aapne apni marji se ki hai' she informs 'ha apni marji se ki hai' on being asked 'aapko pata hai Sartaj pehle bhi shaadi kar chuka hai aur usse usko ek baccha bhi hai' she informed the Court that ' Ha pata hai'. She has also desired that petitioner no. 2 may deposit some money in her bank account, on this petitioner no. 2 Sartaj readily agreed to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the account of petitioner no. 1 Rubi Jahan within a period of one month. She has also made a statement that her father and brother are present outside the Court.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the statement of the girl made before this Court and also in view of the fact that the girl is a major as per High School Mark sheet-cumcertificate, no purpose would be served in keeping the present case

¶11

pending before this Court. Accordingly the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned FIR dated 08.04.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 150 of 2018 u/s 366 IPC, police station Afzalgarh, District Bijnor, is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow.

¶12

The girl has expressed an apprehension before this Court that their lives are in danger as her father and brother are extending threat to them who are also standing outside the court room.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, this Court hereby directs that the family members of the girl will not interfere in any manner whatsoever in the peaceful living of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. In case, they interfere in the peaceful living of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 they will be personally answerable to this Court.

¶14

Let a copy of the order be forwarded to the concerned SSP/SP through the office of the Government Advocate who after receipt of the order shall ensure the safety of the petitioners and also shall ensure that the family members of the victim do not cause any harm or injury to the petitioners and shall ensure fair investigation of the matter without any whims, caprice or personal notion of morality.

¶15

The petitioners are also given liberty that in case any threat is extended to them or they have any apprehension with regard to their security, they may immediately file an application before the SSP/SP concerned along with the certified copy of the order and in case such an application is filed before the SSP/SP concerned, he will look into the matter personally and will ensure the safety of the petitioners.

¶16

A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Government Advocate for necessary compliance today, itself.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.5.2018

¶18

Ujjawal

Rubi Jahan and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubi Jahan and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Kaushik @ Jugnu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ankur Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandan Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

smt. Kiran and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashish Singh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Seema Vishwakarma and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.