Allowed

Sani and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2018CRLP/20795/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition to quash an FIR registered for kidnapping, abduction, and offences under the POCSO Act. The court held the petition succeeded as the prosecutrices were majors who entered into a matrimonial alliance voluntarily, and the state failed to demonstrate kidnapping.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR dated 28.05.2017 and all subsequent proceedings against petitioners are quashed.

Sani and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20795 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Sani And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.B. Pal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

As per office report dated 01.11.2017 and 27.11.2017 notices were issued to the private respondent no. 3 but he has not responded to the notice, hence notice is deemed sufficient.

¶6

Heard Sri R.B. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 28.05.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 0682 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and added Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Etah, District Etah.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are major aged about 22 years and 19 years as per high school certificate respectively. There was love affair between the petitioner no.1 and 2 and they both are living as husband and wife from date of release of petitioner no. 2 from the Court of Bal Kalyan Samiti, Etah, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He next argued that the petitioner no.2 had voluntarily left her parental home and entered into matrimonial alliance with petitioner no.1 and that she was major, it cannot be said that any cognizable offence against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 is made out, 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.

¶9

Per contra learned AGA submitted that the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions made by

¶10

the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶11

Learned AGA has not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt. Swait was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner nos. 1, 3 to 6.

¶12

In view of the above, it cannot be said that the petitioner nos. 1, 3 to 6 have committed any cognizable offence. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed.

¶13

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

¶14

There shall however be no order as to costs.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 13.3.2018 A.K.Verma

Sani and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sani and 5 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kanchan and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arjun Vishwakarma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nitin Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Saroj and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Rahul Vardhan Dinesh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Mukesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others