Allowed

Rahul Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2020CRLP/5603/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash the FIR regarding alleged forced marriage. It directed the petitioner to produce the accused girl before the Magistrate within four weeks to ascertain her age and whether force was used, depending on which she deposes. No coercive action against petitioners was allowed until the girl's production.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR is stayed; direction to produce the girl before Magistrate for age determination and statement recording; stay on coercive action.

Rahul Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5603 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Rahul Yadav And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Perused the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter. Considering the averments in paragraph '29A' of the writ petition, showing difficulty of the deponent to travel to Allahabad, and that we are disposing of the writ petition for further consideration by the competent authority, the defect as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter would lost their relevance and are treated to have been cured.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking for quashing of the first information report dated 10.5.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0143 of 2020, under Sections 366, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2015), Police Station Gida, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

It is contended that both petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are major and the petitioner no. 2 has voluntarily married petitioner no. 1 namely Rahul Yadav and there is no force or pressure upon her. As proof of age of petitioner no. 1, a copy of the transfer certificate dated 30.8.2010 has been appended at page '37' of the paper book. In support of proof of age of the girl, a copy of the High School (10th) Examination Result-2016 downloaded from the net has been appended at page '39' of the paper book.

¶9

We cannot enter into the genuineness of the documents for proof of age appended by the petitioners herein.

¶10

We, therefore, find it proper to direct that the petitioner no. 1 shall produce the petitioner no. 2 (Priti Yadav) before the court of Magistrate concerned on 15th July, 2020. Upon her production, the Magistrate concerned shall proceed to record the statement of petitioner no. 2 (girl) to ascertain whether any force has been used on her or she has been voluntarily in the company of the petitioner no. 1. In case, the petitioner no. 2 deposes before the Magistrate concerned that force has been used on her, the Magistrate concerned shall proceed to pass appropriate orders immediately in respect of the custody/protection of the girl.

¶11

However, in case, the girl deposes that she has been voluntarily in the company of the petitioner no. 1 or any other person and that no force has been used on her, learned Magistrate shall call upon the Investigating Officer of the case and fix a date for appearance of the informant or the parents or natural guardian of the girl for the purpose of determining the age of the girl.

¶12

On the date so fixed or within such reasonable time as may be required, the learned Magistrate shall proceed to determine the age of the girl as per law, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 applicable for determination of the age of a girl and may, if necessary, direct for ossification test/medical examination of the girl from a District Government Hospital.

¶13

If the girl is found to be a minor, the learned Magistrate shall proceed to pass appropriate orders in respect of custody of the girl, as per law. However, in case, the girl is found to be an adult, he shall proceed to record the statement of the girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶14

On the basis of the statement of the girl and the age of the girl as determined above, the police shall submit report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶15

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the girl before the Magistrate concerned.

¶16

Till 15.7.2020 or the date on which the girl is produced before the Magistrate concerned whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in the above case. Thereafter, if the girl is produced before the Magistrate concerned as directed above, the accused shall be dealt with as per the statement of the girl. Though, in the event the girl is found to be minor, the police would be free to take the investigation to its logical conclusion and may effect arrest of the accused.

¶17

It is further clarified that if the girl is not produced by the date fixed as above, there shall be no protection and the investigating agency shall be free to take all steps that may be necessary to bring the investigation to its logical conclusion.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.6.2020 Brijesh

Rahul Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yadav and 6 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

Soni Kumari Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Avnish Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jainullah and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Priya @ Muskan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Rajani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Munna and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others