Dismissed

Mahak Khan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jun 2020CRLP/5593/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners moved the High Court to quash an FIR relating to an alleged domestic dispute, citing the Lata Singh case regarding the rights of consenting married minors. The Court dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioners failed to approach the concerned police authorities to determine the prosecutrix's age and record her statement as per the Apex Court's directions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, holding that the petitioners did not approach the Senior Superintendent of Police to determine the prosecutrix's age and record her statement as directed.

Mahak Khan and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5593 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Mahak Khan And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by Mahak Khan And 8 others, with a prayer for issuing writ of certiorari, thereby, quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 13.3.2020, registered as Case Crime No. 131 of 2020, under Sections 363, 323, 504 IPC, P.S.Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar, with a further prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 not to arrest or harass petitioners in pursuance of impugned FIR.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner No. 1 Smt. Mahak Khan is major and legally weded wife of Amzad Khan- petitioner No. 2. But this FIR was got lodged for above offence by Smt. Shanno W/o Afzal- respondent No. 3. A writ petitioner was filed by Smt. Mahak Khan and another, wherein, vide order dated 21.4.2020, in Writ C No. 9228 of 2020 (Mahak Khan and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), this Court has disposed of mentioning majority of prosecutrix. Hence, this petitioner with above prayer.

¶7

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed.

¶8

From the very perusal of order of Writ C No. 9228 of 2020 (Mahak Khan and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), it is apparent that a petition was filed with same contention as is being argued before this Court. Mahak Khan and Amzad Khan has said themselves to be major and legally married. They were living together, wherein, family members of Mahak Khan and others were interfering. Hence, a prayer was made for issuance of mandamus for not interfering in their matrimonial life and this Court in view of law laid down by Apex Court in Lata Sing Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522 as well as in subsequent case of Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396 , has observed that it is a clear annunciation of law by Hon'ble Apex Court in such matter that once bride and groom are major and they have entered in marriage upon

¶9

their own free will, no can interfere in their married life. Rather, it is right of married couple to live peacefully without any interference, in case they are major and it was obligatory for the concerned authorities to ensure compliance of above direction in view of Article 141 of Constitution of India. Hence, petitioners were to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police of District concerned and furnish necessary details in that regard like proof of their majority, marriage etc., who shall take all steps as required by law. Petitioners' life and liberty are not interfered with keeping in view the direction issued by Apex Court in Lata Singh case (supra).

¶10

But neither petitioners approached S.S.P. concerned nor they cooperated for ensuring about age of majority of prosecutrix and her recording of statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate upon pretext of Investigating Officer for ensuring that she is major and she has entered in marriage under her own will. This age determination is to be made upon the pretext of I.O. by Medical Board but no such steps were taken rather this second petition has been filed. This is baseless with a merit for dismissal.

¶11

Hence, dismissed as such.

¶12

Order Date :- 17.6.2020 Kamarjahan

Mahak Khan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahak Khan and 8 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rachna Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ashutosh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Siraj Alias Mahmuwar Rahman and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajit Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagdish Kumar Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishal Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others