Allowed

Pyar Mohammad @ Pyaru v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2023A482/1490/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 363 and 366 IPC in a kidnapping and abduction case. The court noted the victim recovered her marriage to the accused, bore three children, and stated the leaving was voluntary, relying on Supreme Court precedent that marriage and compromise justify quashing to secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.980 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.107 of 2014 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC is quashed.

Pyar Mohammad @ Pyaru Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1490 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Pyar Mohammad @ Pyaru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Laxmi Narayan Rathour Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Laxmi Narayan Rathour, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

This is 482 application assailing the legality and validity of entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.980 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.107 of 2014, u/s 366 and 363 I.P.C., Police StationKotra, District Jalaun.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. of the present case was got registered by one Raju Khan, brother of the victim on 10.2.2014 for the alleged act of enticing and kidnapping her sister Gulnaz, aged about 16 years. Thereafter the girl was recovered and she was put for medical examination. As per radiological report dated 12.6.2014 the doctor has opined that she is major girl, more than 18 years of age. In her 164 statement the victim in no uncertain terms stated that both of them are in dense affair with each other and they have decided to marry, accordingly, they have performed Nikah on 2.2.2014. This wedlock has blessed with three children, the eldest is the daughter of 5-6 years and two younger sons of 4 years and one year respectively. Unmindful of this fact, the police has submitted charge sheet against the applicant on 28.6.2014.

¶8

In compliance of order of this Court, Mrs. Gulnaz is present in the Court and was duly identified by her counsel. She unequivocally states that she is married with the applicant and with whom she got three children and now she is legally wedded wife of the applicant. In addition to above, they have given an affidavit before the C.J.M., Jalaun at Orai dated 19.12.2022, stating therein that both the parties have come to terms and compromise and therefore they have deiced to withdraw the case against the applicant.

¶9

On this score, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the matter has been compromised between the parties, the victim has got married with the accused and out of this wedlock they have

¶10

been blessed with three children, therefore, under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings against the applicant may be quashed. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mafat Lal & Anr vs. State of Rajasthan, 2022 (6) SCC 589, and has emphasized upon its paras 7 and 8, which are quoted herein below :

¶11

"7. Before this Court, also the abductee has joined the accused as appellant No.2. Once again similar stand has been taken as was taken before the High Court. Both the appellants have filed separate affidavits. Appellant No.2 has specifically stated before the High Court as also before this Court that she had left her parental home on her own 3 free volition. The appellants are married since December 2006 and have been living happily. They have also been blessed with a son in the year 2014 who would now be 8 years old. No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Section 363 IPC. In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will. Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the appellant no. 2 the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the appellant no.1 and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married appellant no.1 on her own free will without any influence being exercised by appellant no.1.

¶12

8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be best secured by quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings that arise therefrom. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 09.12.2020 of the High Court of Rajasthan is set aside and the entire proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 45 of 2005 dated 23.05.2005 registered with Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed."

¶13

Taking into account the totality of circumstances and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Mafat Lal's case ( supra ) I find that there is no good reason to keep this matter pending and alive. I

¶14

deem it proper and to meet the ends of justice that the proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.

¶15

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands ALLOWED. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case pending against the applicant is hereby quashed.

¶16

Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.2.2023 M. Kumar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pyar Mohammad @ Pyaru v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pyar Mohammad @ Pyaru 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

Praveen Kumar Srivastava and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Pal Chaudhary and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Shankar Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another