Partly allowed

Ram Chandra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2019CRLP/9749/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition to quash an FIR regarding kidnapping and abduction. The court refused quashing, directed age verification for the minor petitioner, and granted interim protection from arrest with security deposit conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed (FIR not quashed). Petitioner no. 4 directed for age verification. Petitioner nos. 1-3 granted interim protection from arrest. Husband directed to deposit Rs. 50,000 security.

Ram Chandra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9749 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Chandra And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Priya Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Upendra Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4 in Court today, is taken on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead Sadiya Khatoon as petitioner no.4 in the array of the parties.

¶7

Heard Sri Satya Priya Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Upendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 19.01.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 26 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Patherwa, District-Kushinagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has identified the petitioner nos. 3 and 4, who are present before this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner Sadiya Khatoon has voluntarily performed marriage with the petitioner no.3 without any coercion, duress or undue influence according to Hindu Customs & Rites. The petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed by the police personnel on the basis of false allegations made in the first information report lodged by the respondent no.4 Jakir Husain who is father of the petitioner no. 4 Sadiya Khatoon. It is further stated that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the petitioner no.3.

¶10

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submitted that the daughter of the respondent no. 4 is minor and has been forcibly abducted by the petitioner no. 3 got her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition but she has not been made party in the writ petition. Learned

¶11

A.G.A. contended that the allegations made against the petitioners cannot be aborted at this stage. There is complicity of the petitioner no. 3 in the commission of the said crime. The petitioners are involved in the serious offence.

¶12

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the bald perusal of the FIR, prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 at this stage hence there is no ground for interfering in the F.I.R., therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned FIR is refused.

¶13

However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A., it emerges out that petitioner no. 4 Sadiya Khatoon is major, but no reliable proof regarding her age has been annexed with the petition hence we direct her to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within two weeks from today, who shall get her medical examination done within a week thereafter by the C.M.O. concerned to ascertain her age. The age certificate will contain self attested photograph of petitioner no. 4 Sadiya Khatoon. Thereupon, the I.O. concerned shall record her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and also move an application before the C.J.M. concerned for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., who shall record the same. The investigation officer shall provide her full protection.

¶14

It is further directed that the petitioners nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, Ram Chandra, Limiya Devi and Ram Gopal shall not be arrested in the aforesaid crime till the submission of the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C, subject to restraint that they shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶15

It is further directed that the husband-petitioner no. 3 shall put an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) in a nationalized bank/post office in the form of fixed deposit for a period of not less than three years within one month in the exclusive name of the wifepetitioner no. 4 Sadiya Khatoon.

¶16

The amount so deposited shall not be withdrawn before its maturity under any circumstances except with the leave of C.J.M./Magistrate concerned.

¶17

The concerned bank/post office shall be instructed by the

¶18

depositor (the husband-petitioner no.3) to make a specific note in the record as well as on the fixed deposit receipt that the same shall not be encashed before maturity except with the leave of the C.J.M./Magistrate concerned.

¶19

The husband-petitioner no.3 is directed to furnish proof before the C.J.M./Magistrate concerned within a month that he has made the fixed deposit receipt as directed above in the name of the wife-petitioner no. 4 Sadiya Khatoon.

¶20

This writ petition is disposed of as above. Order Date :- 15.4.2019 Rahul.

Ram Chandra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karishma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeraj Jadaun and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramsurat @ Rampratap Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Duryodhan @ Jodhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Beerbal @ Balveer and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others