Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition filed to quash an FIR under Section 366 IPC. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that as the accused were major and the prosecutrix was major, the FIR was liable to be quashed.
The impugned FIR dated 6.2.2018 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. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3905 of 2018
Petitioner :- Pramendra Kumar @ Parvind And 3 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ayank Mishra,Margret Garima Roberts
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ayank Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Vikas Sahai, 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 6.2.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 26 of 2018 under sections 366 I.P.C., police station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly, the petitioner no. 1 and prosecutrix-petitioner no. 2 are major aged about 23 years and 19 years respectively. There was love affair between the petitioner no. 1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 31.1.2018 in Shiv Mandir, Laksar and have got their marriage registered before the Registrar Hindu Marriage, Laksar (Haridwar) Uttarakhand, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 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 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. 3 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 respondent no. 3 and learned AGA have not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt. Simran Rani was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 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 :- 20.2.2018 Shiraz
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report in a kidnapping case against major strangers who are husband and wife should be quashed.
Whether cognizable offence under Section 366 IPC is made out where the prosecutrix is major and voluntarily left her parental home.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.PReferred¶7
Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 (Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.P) decided on 02.08.2013
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pramendra Kumar @ Parvind And 3 Ors.
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Krishna Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
