Allowed

Smt. Tanu and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2022CRLP/19018/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes an FIR under Section 366 IPC where the petitioner, a major girl, voluntarily left her home to live with the accused as a married woman. The court held that the essential ingredients of abduction lacked intent to seduce or compel marriage or illicit intercourse, invoking feminist jurisprudence principles.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR dated 3.12.2022 under Section 366 IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Smt. Tanu and 5 Others Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19018 of 2022 Petitioner :- Smt. Tanu And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Manish Kumar Yadav, learned brief holder.

¶4

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 3.12.2022 being Case Crime No.545 of 2022 under Section 366 IPC, P.S. Hapur Dehat, Distt. Hapur and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶5

Placing reliance on the High School certificate-cum-marks sheet of the victim girl showing her date of birth as 11.7.2004, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is a major girl aged about more than 18 years on the date of incident.

¶6

The present petition has been filed with the declaration, jointly by both the petitioners no.1 & 2 that the petitioner no.1 had left her paternal home out of her own sweet will and being a major girl, she is free to take her choice to perform marriage with the petitioner no.2.

¶7

The present petition, however, has been filed on the assertion that no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out as the petitioner no.1 is a major girl. The entire criminal case lodged by the respondent no.4 is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr reported in AIR 2018 SC 2099, wherein it was held that to constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, that such abduction took place with the intent that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction. Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal section. So far as charge under Section 366 IPC is

¶9

concerned, mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC.

¶10

As regards the age of the victim girl, as indicated in the High School certificate-cum-marks sheet appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, no dispute has been raised by learned brief holder. It is, thus, clear that both the petitioners are major. The fact that the present writ petition has been filed with the declaration by the victim girl and that she is living voluntarily in the company of the petitioner no.2, is supported with the signature of the victim girl on the Vakalatnama. Once the age of the victim girl is not in dispute, the petitioners cannot be made accused for committing offence under Section 366 IPC as victim had left her home in order to live with the petitioner no.2.

¶11

We make it clear that the question in the present petition is not about the validity of marriage of two individuals i.e. petitioners no.1 & 2. Rather, the issue is about the life and liberty of two individuals in choosing a partner or their right to freedom of choice as to with whom they would like to live.

¶12

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that from the first information report no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out, inasmuch as, both the petitioners are major and the petitioner no.1 has come up with the categorical stand that she had left her home with the petitioner no.2 willingly and is living with him as a married woman.

¶13

In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed . The FIR dated 3.12.2022 being Case Crime No.545 of 2022 under Section 366 IPC, P.S. Hapur Dehat, Distt. Hapur as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶14

We, however, clarify that while deciding the present petition, we have not looked into the validity of marriage of the petitioners.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.12.2022 SP/

¶16

Digitally signed by SURYA PRAKASH Date: 2022.12.19 16:03:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Tanu and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tanu and 5 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Ravendra and and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramakant Ram Vs State of U P and Another

Ismail Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anshu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Lallu @ Mansoor Ahamd Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others