Allowed

Renu Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2018CRLP/7631/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition seeking quashment of FIR under Section 366 IPC. Court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings, noting that prosecutrix was a major who voluntarily left her home and married the accused, contrary to allegations of abduction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings taken against petitioners in pursuance thereof quashed.

Renu Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7631 of 2018 Petitioner :- Renu Gupta And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Mishra Gana Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶2

Ms. Pratibha Singh, Advocate has filed her power on behalf of respondent no.4 which is taken on record.

¶3

Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Pratibha Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 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.

¶4

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 19.3.2018, registered as case crime no.72 of 2018, u/s 366 IPC, P.S. Sidhpura, district Kashganj.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are major aged about 21 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 12.3.2018 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.

¶6

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent no.4 as well as 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.

¶7

Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 as well as learned AGA has not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt. Renu Gupta 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 :- 28.3.2018/Gaurav

Renu Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Gupta and 3 Others 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

Vandana Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Barkat Ali and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Preeti and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Shahzad Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

jitendra bhatt @ ratan bhatt @ jitendra sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Naveen and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others