This court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. It held that the victim, recorded as a minor in her matriculation certificate, must be treated as a minor. Thus, a prima facie case exists, and no relief can be granted at this stage.
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. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11870 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Mamta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J .
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Amarjeet Upadhyay; learned counsel for the respondent no. 3; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 25.04.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 180 of 2019, under Sections 363 & 366 I.P.C., Police Station Daurala, District Meerut.
The allegations in the impugned First Information Report, which has been lodged by father of the victim, Mamta, who is a minor girl, whose date of birth is 16.07.2001, is that she has been enticed away by the accused Ritik.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that although the recorded date of birth of victim, Mamta, is 16.07.2001 but the fact is that she is an adult.
As it has been settled by a series of decisions of the Apex Court that the age of the victim is to be determined by applying same principles as are applicable to determine the age of a juvenile in conflict with law (see Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 637; Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 623; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh, (2015) 7 SCC 773), at this stage, keeping in mind that primacy is to be given to matriculation certificate, it cannot be said that a prima facie case is not made out against the accused.
In view of the above, keeping in mind that there is no dispute that the victim's date of birth recorded in her matriculation certificate is 01.07.2001 and, on that basis, she is minor, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, at this stage, in writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.
O rder Date :- 3.5.2019
Vibha Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition seeking quashing of the FIR should be allowed on the ground that the victim is an adult despite her birth date appearing to be of a minor.
Whether the victim must be treated as a minor for the purpose of determining the prima facie case in a quashing petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahadeo v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶9
Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 637 · Who else cites this
Jarnail Singh v. State of HaryanaReferred¶9
Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 623 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop SinghReferred¶9
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh, (2015) 7 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
Smt. Mamta And Another
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Manoj Misra
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
