The High Court quashed the FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC filed against petitioners for kidnapping and abduction, holding that as the prosecutrix was major and the marriage was voluntary, no cognizable offence was made out.
The impugned FIR dated 1.2.2018 and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners are 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. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3415 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Sangeeta And 3 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratik Chandra,Asha Parihar,Rupendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anubhav Shukla
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Mishra and Ms. Asha Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anubhav Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Ms. Ibha Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 1.2.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 60 of 2018 under sections 363, 366 I.P.C., police station Refinery, District Mathura.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 are major aged about 19 years and 22 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 1.2.2018,copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 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 petitioners 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.
Per contra learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and learned AGA submitted that the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned AGA have not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt. Sangeeta was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner nos. 2 to 4, in view of the above it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any cognizable offence. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioners in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed.
There shall however be no order as to costs.
(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 12.2.2018 Shiraz
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR registering offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC against major petitioners is liable to be quashed.
Whether the matrimonial relationship between the petitioners negates the ingredients of kidnapping or abduction.
Whether the High Court is satisfied that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.P.Followed¶7
(Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.P) decided on 02.08.2013)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sangeeta And 3 Ors.
State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Ramesh Sinha
Krishna Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
