Allowed

Reena and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2019CRLP/8052/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court of U.P. at Lucknow Bench examined the statement of the minor petitioner and held that quashing of the FIR was necessary as further investigation would serve no purpose and amount to harassment of the couple.

What did the court decide?

Writ order quashing the impugned FIR registered as Case Crime No. 30 of 2019 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.

Reena and Another Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8052 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Reena And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR registered as Case Crime No. 30 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366 IPC PS Majhgawan District Hamirpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that victim is petitioner no.1 - and accused is petitioner no. 2; both are major and have also solemnized their marriage and they are living happily as husband and wife; victim herself is the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition; victim is aged about 19 years as per the FIR itself which has been lodged by the father of the girl, thus there is no question of disbelieving the FIR version. The Court has been demonstrated by the High School certificate of the girl which shows that her date of birth is 6.5.1999 and thus, the girl is an adult. He further informed the Court that both the petitioners are present before this Court today.

¶8

Smt. Reena - petitioner no. 1 is present before this Court today and she has identified petitioner no. 2 - Aman, who is also present before this Court today, as her husband, who in turn identified petitioner no. 1 as his wife.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has identified both the petitioners on the basis of documents produced before him in his chamber as a counsel.

¶10

Since the Court has been informed that the girl petitioner no. 1 is present before this Court today, with the consent of learned counsel for the both side, the Court by way of of abundant caution proceeds to examine her only to know as to whether she is the deponent of the affidavit or not.

¶11

Accordingly, the Court has examined petitioner no. 1, who has made a statement before this Court that her name is Reena and her age is 19 years and she has done High School. Petitioner no. 1 also informed the Court that she has married with petitioner no. 2, who is present before this Court today. She further informed the Court that she married with petitioner no. 2 without any pressure, threat or coercion and they are entitled to live happily as husband and wife. She has further informed that she herself has signed the writ petition. She further contends that no offence as alleged in the FIR has been made out, however, the police under the garb of investigation is

¶12

unnecessarily harassing the petitioners.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, keeping in view the statement made by the victim girl before this Court today and keeping in view the law as laid down in the case of Sachin Pawar v. State of U.P. Passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 decided on 2.8.2013 and the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow Bench in the case of Vishal Jaiswal and another v. State of U.P. and others passed on 26.8.2016 in Misc. Bench No. 10724 of 2016 and Shaheen Parveen and another v. State of U.P. And others passed in writ petition no. 3519 (M/B) of 2015 and by the Apex Court in the cases of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. And another; 2011(6) SCC 396 and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 231 of 2010 , no purpose would be served in permitting the investigation to continue in pursuance of impugned FIR and in permitting the police authorities to harass the couple under the garb of fair investigation. It would be nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned FIR registered as Case Crime No. 30 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366 IPC PS Majhgawan District Hamirpur is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow.

¶15

The family members of the victim girl are restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the peaceful living of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and indulging in any act of violence with them. In case they flout the order passed by this Court or indulge in any act of violence with the petitioners, they will be personally answerable to this Court.

¶16

However, liberty is given to the respondents that in case subsequently it is found that some facts have been concealed or fabricated documents have been annexed with the writ petition, they may file a recall application before this Court itself.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.4.2019 SP

Reena and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Dablu @ Hari Saran and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Farzan @ Faiyyaz Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surbhi and 7 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sandeep Vaswani and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nand Kishor and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Madusudhan Reddy and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others