Allowed

Neha Dixit and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2018CRLP/1862/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Writ Petition sought quashing of an FIR registered under Section 366 IPC. The Court allowed the petition, finding evidence of voluntary marriage between major parties and holding no cognizable offence was made out.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR registered as crime no.1124 of 2017 u/s 366 IPC and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.

Neha Dixit and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1862 of 2018 Petitioner :- Neha Dixit And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Ker Singh Counsel for Respondent :- GA

¶2

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Ibha Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶4

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 17.10.2017, registered as case crime no.1124 of 2017, u/s 366 IPC, P.S. Noida Phase III, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶5

As per office report dated 20.3.2018, respondent no.4 has not respondend to the notice issued to him, hence notice issued to him is deemd to be sufficient.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are major aged about 22 years and 25 years respectively as per high school certificate. There was love affair between the petitioner no.1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 2.11.2017 as per Hindu customs. He next argued that the petitioner no.1 had voluntarily left her parental home and entered into matrimonial alliance with petitioner no.2 and that she was major, it cannot be said that any cognizable offence against the petitioner nos.2 is made out and hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are major and they have voluntarily married, then to conceive in view of the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 (Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.P) decided on 02.08.2013), that, offence has been committed under Section 366 I.P.C., cannot be approved of.

¶7

Learned AGA has not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt. Neha Dixit was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner no.2, in view of the above it cannot be said that the petitioner nos.2 has committed any cognizable offence.

¶8

The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed.

¶9

The impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioners in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed.

¶10

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶11

(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 21.3.2018 Gaurav

Neha Dixit and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neha Dixit and Another 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

Jay Shankar Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dinesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sartaj @ Dhoni and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Supriya Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Satyajit Das and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others