Disposed

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

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2020CRLP/3151/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition filed to quash FIR for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Court rejected quashing request but directed no coercive action against petitioners until charge sheet submission under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Directed that no coercive action be taken against petitioners until submission of charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Karishma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3151 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Karishma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Pundir,Pranshu Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Sri Gaurav Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajeev Lochan Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR dated 24.01.2020 in respect of Crime No. 0018 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C., P.S. Faiz Ganj Behta, District Budaun.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are major and have performed the marriage of their own choice. It has been argued that as per Aadhar Card, the date of birth of petitioner no.1 is 01.01.2001 and on the date of performing marriage i.e. 13.02.2020, she was above 18 years of age. It has been further argued that the marriage has also been registered with the competent authority. Learned counsel submits that even if the date of birth of fifth class of petitioner no.1 is accepted, on the date of marriage, she was 17 years, 9 months and 8 days and she was in a position to exercise her discretion and the couple is living happy married life. It has been argued that considering the nature of dispute, there is every possibility of amicable settlement between the two families and therefore, till filing of charge sheet, petitioners be protected.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the petition.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, we are not inclined to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶10

However, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the State authorities that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of above stated crime number till the submission of charge sheet under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. before the court concerned.

¶11

It is made clear that this order would remain effective till the petitioners cooperate in the investigation.

¶12

Order Date :- 27.2.2020 C. MANI/ RK

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karishma and Another 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

Vijendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Irfan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vineeta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Nargis and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Divyesh @ Priyanshu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others