Allowed

Vishal and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2022A482/1858/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the charge sheet and criminal proceedings initiated under the IPC and POCSO Act. The case involved allegations against the father of the victim's spouse. The court held that since both daughters were major adults living together with their respective spouses after a valid court marriage, they were free to live together, and the prosecution is a malicious attempt to interfere

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet No. 1 of 2017 and criminal proceedings in case crime no. 493 of 2017 were quashed and the application allowed.

Vishal and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1858 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vishal And 3 Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Ramesh Kumar Pandey,Yogesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.

¶6

The present application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no. 1 of 2017 dated 10.09.2017 submitted in case crime no. 493 of 2017 under Section 452, 323, 120-B, 363, 376 IPC and Section 5g, 6, 16, 17 of POCSO Act, P.S. Modinagar District Ghaziabad pending before Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ghaziabad.

¶7

From perusal of the record it transpires that notice was served upon the opposite party no. 2 personally but neither he nor his counsel appeared when the case is called.

¶8

The applicants claim that the applicant no. 1 and daughter of opposite party no.2 are adults and have married to each other and living together as husband and wife. Copy of marriage certificate has been annexure as annexure-10 to the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicants states that out of their wedlock one child has also born.

¶9

In support of age of daughter of opposite party no.2, the applicants have annexed medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad as annexure-4 to the affidavit, wherein she is found above 18 years. Bboth the applicant no. 1 and daughter of opposite party no. 2 are major and they have performed court marriage to each other on 31.07.2017, as stated by the victim (daughter of opposite party no.2) in her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., copy of which has been annexed as annexure-5 to the affidavit.

¶10

The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled the law that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has authority to interfere with their living together. Reference may be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of

¶11

Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475; and, Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396, which have consistently been followed by the Supreme Court and this Court, as well as of this Court in Deepika and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534. The Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) has held as under:

¶12

"7. ... Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter."

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant no. 1 and victim (daughter of opposite party no.2) are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living.

¶14

The proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶15

The present application is allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.8.2022 Ashish

¶17

Digitally signed by ASHISH Date: 2022.08.17 15:50:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishal and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Iqbal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ayushi Bharti Vs State of U.P.and 7 Others

Smt. Kamar Jahan and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Moinuddin Vs State of U.P.and Another

Bhupendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another