Allowed

Radha @ Gunjan and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2018CRLP/2734/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 366 and 506 IPC. The court observed that the parties were major, married willingly, and living happily, finding no purpose in keeping the case pending.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR registered as Case Crime No. 773 of 2017 under Sections 366 and 506 IPC is quashed.

Radha @ Gunjan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2734 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Radha @ Gunjan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Nath Dubey,Sachin Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashish Goyal

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashish Goel, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Perusal of interim order dated 06.02.2018 shows that petitioner no. 1 and 2 have also solemnized marriage out of their own sweet will and they are living happily as husband and wife; there is a affidavit of petitioner no.1 filed in support of the writ petition; as per the High School Mark Sheet, the date of birth of the victim is 10.02.1997; marriage has been registered on 07.12.2017, copy of which has been filed at page 30 of the writ petition. 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 has opposed the writ petition but he does not dispute the veracity of the High School Mark Sheet and he also does not dispute the age of girl as 21 years.

¶8

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-cum-certificate, 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 Case Crime No. 773 of 2017 u/s 366,506 IPC, police station Achhnera District Agra is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 4.5.2018

¶13

T.S.

Radha @ Gunjan and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha @ Gunjan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rekha and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Darshan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prashant and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Amreen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pawan Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others