Allowed¶18

Jai Prakash Maddheshiya and 3 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2020CRLP/7914/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashment of FIR on compromise between parties; Case Crime No.1080 of 2018, P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria; Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC; Section 361 IPC ingredients; Section 320 Cr.P.C. compounding of offences; kidnapping/abduction; age of girl more than 18 years; marriage of Sunita Prajapati with petitioner no.1; affidavit before Superintendent of Police, Deoria; death of Sunita Prajapati on 24.10.2019; writ petition allowed on 13.10.2020.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of FIR dated 25.12.2018 in Case Crime No.1080 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 504 and 506 IPC registered at police station Kotwali, District Deoria. ¶18

Jai Prakash Maddheshiya and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7914 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Maddheshiya And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravindra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant.

¶6

Petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashment of FIR dated 25.12.2018 in Case Crime No.1080 of 2018, under Sections-363, 366, 504 and 506 IPC registered at police stationKotwali, District-Deoria on the basis of compromise between the parties dated 07.11.2019.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the FIR, it is mentioned that on 22.12.2018 his minor sister Sunita Prajapati aged about 17 years and Durgawati aged about 14 years were abducted by Jai Prakash Madheshiya i.e. the petitioner no.1 along with his three accomplices who were sitting in a Bolero Vehicle. The informant, his father Munna Prajapati and mother Kalawati tried to rescue the girls, but they were abused and threatened.

¶8

FIR was lodged against the four persons namely; Jai Prakash Madhesiya, Yogendra, Om Prakash and mother of Jai Prakash Madhesiya.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a compromise was affected between the parties on the ground that

¶10

Sunita Prajapati was in filial relationship with Jai Prakash Madheshiya. Since, parents of Jai Prakash Madheshiya agreed to accept Sunita Prajapati as wife of Jai Prakash Madheshiya and their daughter-in-law, therefore, compromise was entered into; such compromise is on record as Annexure-3.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits, moreover, no case under Sections 363 and 366 IPC is made out, because Sunita Prajapati was his married wife and as per the records, age of Sunita Prajapati on the date of the incident was more than 18 years as is evident from High School Marksheet and Birth Certificate showing her date of birth as 13.07.2000. Copy of such Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar (Birth and Death), Nagar Palika Parishad, Deoria and High School Marksheet are available on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

¶12

It has also come on record that Sunita Prajapati died on 24.10.2019, because of right pleural effusion sepsis causes pericardial effusion and shock resulting in cardiopulmonary arrest as is evident from the Death Certificate issued by Nehru Hospital, Baba Raghav Das Medical College, Gorakhpur dated 26.10.2019 (Annexure-5).

¶13

In the above backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as he has been able to successfully demonstrate that age of Sunita Prajapati was more than 18 years on the date of the incident and she was not abducted or kidnapped, therefore, ingredients of Section 361 IPC are not made out so to attract punishment under Section 363 IPC.

¶14

Similarly, ingredients of Section 366 IPC are also not made out as Sunita Prajapati was not kidnapped or abducted to compel her for marriage, but she herself sworn an affidavit

¶15

before the Superintendent of Police, Deoria as is available on record as Annexure-2 that she was in relationship with petitioner no.1 and had left her home along with her sister with a view to perform marriage on her own volition. She had further mentioned that her parents and brother had lodged a false case suppressing the correct facts against Jai Prakash Madheshiya and his relatives with a view to extort money from them.

¶16

In view of above facts, when no offence is made out under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and further the offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC are compoundable in terms of the provisions contained in Section 320 Cr.P.C. and parties have already compounded the offences and have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose is going to be served to continue with the prosecution on the basis of the FIR impugned.

¶17

In view of such facts, FIR impugned bearing Case Crime No.1080 of 2018, under Sections-363, 366, 504 and 506 IPC registered at police station-Kotwali, District-Deoria is quashed.

¶18

Petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.10.2020 Ashutosh

Jai Prakash Maddheshiya and 3 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Maddheshiya and 3 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saddam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Yadav (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Binte Zehra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neha Madaan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Narbada Prasad Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sudheer Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others