Smt.Sudha Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023CRLP/14379/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Sections 366, 504, 506 IPC; adult/major couple; marriage of own sweet will; life and liberty; choice of partner; Case Crime No. 140 of 2023; PS Pahari; District Chitrakoot; Smt. Sudha Singh; writ petition allowed; consequential proceedings quashed; Juli Kumari v. State of UP; Kavita Chandrakant Lakhni AIR 2018 SC 2099; neutral citation 2023:AHC:193631-DB; Allahabad High Court; decision date 6.10.2023.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; FIR dated 7.8.2023 registered as Case Crime No.140 of 2023 under Sections 366, 504 and 506 of IPC, PS Pahari, District Chitrakoot, and all consequential proceedings quashed. ¶¶23

Smt.Sudha Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; FIR dated 7.8.2023 registered as Case Crime No.140 of 2023 under Sections 366, 504 and 506 of IPC, PS Pahari, District Chitrakoot, and all consequential proceedings quashed.

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 7.8.2023 (Case Crime No.140 of 2023) under Sections 366, 504 and 506 IPC, PS Pahari, District Chitrakoot, is liable to be quashed on the ground that both petitioners are major and petitioner no. 1 left her home and married of her own will.

¶¶7

Court's answer

From the first information report no offence under Sections 366, 504 and 506 IPC is made out, inasmuch as the petitioners no. 1 and 2 are major.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner no. 1 has categorically stated that she left her home with petitioner no. 2 willingly and is living with him as a married woman, which supports the conclusion that no offence is made out.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

While deciding the present petition, the Court has not looked into the validity of marriage of the petitioners.obiter¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla and Vinod Diwakar, JJ.), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14379 of 2023 (Smt. Sudha Singh and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others), decided 6.10.2023 (Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:193631-DB): Petition seeking quashing of FIR dated 7.8.2023, Case Crime No.140 of 2023, under Sections 366, 504 and 506 IPC, PS Pahari, District Chitrakoot, allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed. Held that no offence under Sections 366, 504 and 506 IPC is made out from the FIR since both petitioners are major (Aadhaar dates of birth 4.1.1998 and 1.1.1992) and petitioner no. 1 categorically stated she left her home with petitioner no. 2 willingly and is living with him as a married woman; online registration of marriage also placed on record. Reliance placed on order dated 5.12.2022 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17046 of 2022 (Smt. Juli Kumari and another v. State of UP and 2 others), which in turn cited Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2018 SC 2099. Court clarified it did not examine the validity of the marriage.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193631-DB

¶2

Court No. - 45

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14379 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt.Sudha Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avadhesh Singh,Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Subhash Singh Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Subhash Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, learned AGA for the respondent No.s1 to 3 and perused the record.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 7.8.2023 registered as Case Crime No.140 of 2023, under Sections 366, 504 and 506 of IPC, PS Pahari, District Chitrakoot, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no case has been made out as even as per the first information report itself, daughter of the informant is aged about 24 years. By drawing attention to Annexure-3 to the petition, it is submitted that online application for registration of marriage has also been submitted, which has been successfully registered. It is submitted that as per Adhaar card, the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is 4.1.1998 and date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is 1.1.1992 and as such, the petitioners no. 1 and 2 are major and they have married on their sweet will and no offence has been committed. Reliance has been placed on a judgement and order dated 5.12.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17046 of 2022 (Smt. Juli Kumari and another vs. State of UP and 2 others) to submit that under identical circumstances the petition was allowed and FIR therein was quashed.

¶9

The aforesaid order dated 5.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17046 of 2022 (Smt. Juli Kumari and another vs. State of UP and 2 others) is quoted as under:

¶10

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA.

¶11

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 25.10.2022 being Case Crime No.0475 of 2022 under Section 366 IPC, P.S. Saurikh, Distt. Kannauj and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶12

Placing reliance on the Aadhar Card of the victim girl showing her date of birth as 1.1.2004, 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.3 is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law.

¶15

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 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.

¶16

As regards the age of the victim girl, as indicated in the Aadhar Card appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, no dispute has been raised by learned AGA. 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 no.1 & 2 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The FIR dated 25.10.2022 being Case Crime No.0475 of 2022 under Section 366 IPC, P.S. Saurikh, Distt. Kannauj as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶20

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

¶21

Per contra, learned AGA though has opposed the petition, however, could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶22

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that from the first information report no offence under Sections 366, 504 and 506 IPC is made out, inasmuch as, the petitioners no. 1 and 2 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.

¶23

In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The First Information Report dated 7.8.2023 registered as Case Crime No.140 of 2023, under Sections 366, 504 and 506 of IPC,

¶24

PS Pahari, District Chitrakoot as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 6.10.2023 Rakesh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH MEHTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt.Sudha Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sudha Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Markandey Rao Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kranti Kumar Kaul Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reena Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Saddam Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Narendra Upadhyay Alias Narendra Deo Upadhyay and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jay Bhagwan Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others