Allowed

Mangal Singh @ Abhishek and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Sept 2020CRLP/9776/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging abduction and kidnapping of a minor girl. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Suhani, noting that the petitioner and the girl were majors at the time of their solemnized marriage and expressed their free will.

What did the court decide?

Impugned first information report dated 25.02.2020 in Case Crime No.093 of 2020 was quashed.

Mangal Singh @ Abhishek and 3 Others Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9776 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Mangal Singh @ Abhishek And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Nath Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Certified copy of the F.I.R. has been filed today by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The same is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Hari Nath Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing the impugned first information report dated 25.02.2020 in Case Crime No.093 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Bhoganipur, District-Kanpur Dehat.

¶8

The allegation in the first information report is that on 22.02.2020 at about 5.00pm. petitioner No.2-Priyanka, who is minor daughter of respondent No.3 has been enticed away by petitioner No.1-Mangal @ Abhishek. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the father and mother of petitioner No.1. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the date of birth of petitioner No.2 is 12.05.2002.

¶9

The contention of the petitioners is that as per F.I.R./version itself the petitioner No.2 was minor on the date of incident i.e. 22.02.2020 she was aged about 17 years 9 months (less then 18 years), but when she has solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1 on 30.08.2020, she was more than 18 years i.e. major. Thereafter petitioner No.2 herself has sent a letter to the Thana Adhyaksha, District Kanpur Dehat by a registered post on 31.08.2020. The petitioners have also applied for on-line registration of their marriage on 31.08.2020, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition. As such, she was more than 18 years of age on the date of marriage i.e. 30.08.2020 mentioned in the F.I.R. and when they have applied for online registration of their marriage.

¶10

The Supreme Court in its judgement passed in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 (Suhani and another vs. State of U.P. and others) has held as under:

¶11

"Considering the findings of physical, dental and radiological examinations we are of the considered opinion that the bone age of petitioner Miss. Suhani is between 19-24 years. In view of the conclusion arrived at by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner no.2 is a major and the High Court was not correct in directing her to say in Nari Niketan, Allahabad. The petitioner no.1 admits the factum of marriage, before us. Therefore, she is entitled to accompany the petitioner no.2, who is her husband.

¶12

In view of our conclusion that she is an adult and she had gone voluntarily with the petitioner no.2 and entered into wedlock, the criminal proceedings initiated under section 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Court against the petitioner no.2 stands quashed. We have passed this order of quashing the proceedings to do complete justice."

¶13

In the present case, it is not disputed between the parties that the petitioner no.1, Mangal Singh @ Abhishek and the petitioner no.2, Priyanka are major, at the time when they have solemnized marriage with each other and have also applied online registration of their marriage.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Suhani (supra) as well as the fact that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are major at the time of their marriage and the victim/girl has married with the petitioner no.1 out of her own volition, we therefore, quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶15

The writ petition stands allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 30.9.2020 Pr/-

Mangal Singh @ Abhishek and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Singh @ Abhishek and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Sahadur Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Akhil Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajeev Yadav @ Raju Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dilshad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vedpal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others