Allowed

Aneeta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 May 2018CRLP/12702/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging child trafficking in a husband-wife major marriage. The Court quashed the FIR upon finding the victim was 19 years old and the marriage was solemnized voluntarily without coercion.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR is quashed. Family members restrained from interfering. Police directed to ensure safe journey of petitioners.

Aneeta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12702 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Aneeta And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 23.04.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 189 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Bewar, District Mainpuri.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that victim is petitioner no.1 - and accused is petitioner no. 2; both are major and have also solemnized marriage out of their own sweet and free will without any threat, fear or coercion 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 20 years.

¶8

The attention of the Court has been drawn to the order passed by learned Singh Judge vide order dated 24.04.2018, copy of which is annexed at page 34 of the affidavit, which shows that the petitioners had been directed to present before the CMO, Allahabad for the purposes of ascertaining the age of the girl.

¶9

Subsequently, the matter was taken up on 10.05.2018 and an order was passed on the same day, perusal of which shows that a report dated 30.4.2018 of CMO, Allahabad was submitted before the Court by the learned Standing Counsel. In the said report, it was opined that the age of the girl is about 19 years and the age of the petitioner no. 2 is 21 years.

¶10

We have perused the order by means of which protection has been granted to the couple.

¶11

Aneeta - petitioner no. 1 is present before this Court today and she has identified petitioner no. 2 - Sandeep @ Sandeep Kumar, who is also present before this Court today, as her husband, who in turn identified petitioner no. 1 as his wife.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has identified both the petitioners on the basis of documents produced before him in his chamber as a counsel.

¶13

Since petitioner no. 1 is present before this Court today, with the consent of learned counsel for the both side, the Court proceeds to

¶14

examine her.

¶15

Accordingly, the Court has examined petitioner no. 1, who has made a statement before this Court. On being asked "apka naam kya hai" she informs the Court "Aneeta". On being asked "apke pita ji ka kya naam hai" she informs "Hari Singh". On being asked "kya apne shaadi ki hai" she informs the Court "ha meine Sandeep @ Sandeep Kumar se shaadi ki hai apni marzi se". Petitioner no. 1 also informed the Court that she has married with petitioner no. 2, who is present before this Court today. She further informed the Court that she married with petitioner no. 2 without any pressure, threat or coercion and they are entitled to live happily as husband and wife. She further contends no offence as alleged in the FIR has been made out, however, the police under the garb of investigation is unnecessarily harassing the petitioners.

¶16

Looking to the age of the girl being 19 years as per the medical examination which was conducted pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, a case for grant of indulgence has been made out.

¶17

In view of the facts and circumstances, keeping in view the statement made by the victim girl before this Court today 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 and 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 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 , no purpose would be served in permitting the investigation to continue in pursuance of impugned FIR. It would be nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned FIR dated 23.04.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 189 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Bewar, District Mainpuri is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow.

¶19

At this stage, the victim girl has also expressed an apprehension before this Court that her father and brother have come to the city and they are watching out of the Court to snatch her away.

¶20

Looking to the facts and circumstances, the family members of the victim girl are restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the peaceful living of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and indulging in any act of violence with them. They are also injuncted from trying to contact the petitioners. In case they flout the order passed by this Court today, they will be personally answerable to this Court.

¶21

It is further directed that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 will be escorted from this Court to the office of Registrar General of this Court by the

¶22

police constable present in the Court and the Registrar General in co-ordination with the SSP, Allahabad shall ensure the safe journey of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 from this Court to their place of residence and the SSP, Allahabad will ensure that no hindrance shall be caused in the movement of the petitioners.

¶23

Let a copy of the order be forwarded to the SSP of concerned district 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.

¶24

The petitioners are also given liberty that in case after reaching their place of residence any threat is extended to them or they have any apprehension with regard to their security, they may immediately file an application before the concerned senior police officer or the SHO of concerned police station through local counsel along with the certified copy of the order and in case such an application is filed before authority concerned, he will look into the matter personally and will ensure the safety of the petitioners. In case in spite of this order, any mis-happening occurs with petitioner nos.1 and 2, the concerned police officer will also be answerable to this Court along with family members of petitioner no.1.

¶25

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Registrar General of this Court as well as learned Government Advocate for necessary compliance today, itself.

¶26

This order has been passed in the presence of learned counsel for all the parties concerned.

¶27

Order Date :- 18.5.2018 Radhika

Aneeta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneeta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Swati Tyagi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Khilafat Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Komal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunil Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Viany Kumar Alias Yogesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sazia Parveen and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others