In a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 366 IPC, the Court quashed the case after examining the adult female petitioner, who confirmed her voluntary presence and willingness to marry the co-petitioner.
The impugned FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0395 of 2018 is quashed.
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. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13320 of 2018
Petitioner :- Pranshi Shukla And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Pandey,Satish Trivedi (Sr. Adv.),Vikas Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Virendra Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and Sri Virendra Singh learned counsel for respondent no.4.
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. 0395 of 2018, under Section 366 I.P.C. PS Naini District Allahabad.
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 24 years, even as per the FIR itself she is 24 years of age.
Sri Virendra Singh learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 does not dispute the age of the girl, thus as on date it is admitted position on record that girl Pranshi Shukla is adult and she is aged about 24 years of age.
Smt. Pranshi Shukla - petitioner no. 1 is present before this Court today and she has identified petitioner no. 2 Rohit Kumar Kesarwani, who is also present before this Court today, as her husband, who in turn identified petitioner no. 1 as his wife.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has identified both the petitioners on the basis of documents produced before him in his chamber as a counsel.
Since Pranshi Shukla - petitioner no. 1 is present before this Court today, with the consent of learned counsel for the both side, the Court proceeds to examine her.
Accordingly, the Court has examined Pranshi Shukla - petitioner no. 1 who has made a statement before this Court that her name is Pranshi Shukla and her age is 24 years. Petitioner no. 1 also informed the Court that she has married with petitioner no. 2 Rohit Kumar Kesarwani, who is present before this Court today, without any pressure, threat or coercion and they are entitled to live happily as husband and wife. She has further informed that she has done her B.Com and at present she is pursuing BTC course. On being asked from the girl that "kya aapko pata hai ki petitioner no.2 Rohit Kumar Kesarwani pahle se shadishuda hain aur unki pahli biwi se teen
bachche bhi hain" she informs the Court that "haan mai is baare me jaanti hun". On being asked from the girl that "agar bhivashya me petitioner no.2 aap ko chhod kar apni pahli biwi ke paas chali jayengi to aap ka kya hoga" she informs that "main self-dependent rahungi kyonki mujhe bharosa hai ki mujhe naukri mil jayegi". Even on being asked from the girl that "aap phir se apne decision par vichar kar sakti hain" she informs the Court " main petitioner no.2 Rohit Kumar Kesarwani ke sath hi jana chahti hun". On being asked that "kya aap apne parents se milna ya baat karna chahengi" she informs the Court that "nahin".
Thus, keeping in view the statement of the girl and the fact that age of the girl is not being disputed and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court (Lucknow Bench) rendered in the cases 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 vs. State of U.P. and Orthrs passed in writ petition no. 3519 (M/B) of 2015 and by the Apex Court in the cases of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2011 (6) SCC 396 (2014) and Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India passed in writ petition (civil) no. 231 of 2010 and Suhani & Another v. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in civil appeal no. 4532 of 2018 decided on 26.04.2018, no purpose would be served in keeping the present case pending before this Court. Accordingly the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned FIR registered as aforesaid case crime is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow. Order Date :- 23.5.2018
SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Section 366 IPC against adult petitioners seeking quashing.
Whether the marriage was solemnized with the consent of the adult female petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vishal Jaiswal And Another v. State of U.P. and OthersReferred¶14
Vishal Jaiswal And Another v. State of U.P. and Others passed on 26.8.2016 in Misc. Bench No. 10724 of 2016
Shaheen Parveen And Another vs. State of U.P. and OrthrsReferred¶14
Shaheen Parveen And Another vs. State of U.P. and Orthrs passed in writ petition no. 3519 (M/B) of 2015
Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶14
Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2011 (6) SCC 396 (2014) · Who else cites this
Shakti Vahini vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶14
Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India passed in writ petition (civil) no. 231 of 2010
Suhani & Another v. State of U.P. & Ors.Referred¶14
Suhani & Another v. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in civil appeal no. 4532 of 2018
Pranshi Shukla
Rohit Kumar Kesarwani
State Of U.P.
Vipin Sinha
Mahboob Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
