Smt. Pratima and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 45

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2969 of 2023

Petitioner :- Smt. Pratima And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar,Piyush Patel Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akash Kumar Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an information slip received by the learned counsel for the informant that the case shall be taken up in the first call. The information slip is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Satendra Kumar holding brief of Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶7

No one is present on behalf of the informant.

¶8

We find that the case is continuing in the list of fresh cases as left over matters.

¶9

Supplementary affidavit filed today placing certified copy of the first information report is taken on record.

¶10

The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 1.2.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 11 of 2023, under Section 366 IPC, PS Bhitauli, District Maharajganj and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out as the petitioner no. 1 is major. By drawing attention to annexure 5 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 Aadhar Card, the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is 1.1.1999 and date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is 1.1.2000 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

¶12

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.

¶13

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:

¶14

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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, 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.

¶29

In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The FIR dated 1.2.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 11 of 2023, under Section 366 IPC, PS Bhitauli, District Maharajganj as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶30

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

¶31

Since this order has been passed in absence of respondent no. 3, he shall be at liberty to file a recall application for recalling of this order within six weeks.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to inform learned counsel appearing for the informant about this order in writing.

¶33

Order Date :- 5.5.2023 Lalit Shukla

¶34

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

Smt. Pratima and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pratima and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Smt Maharajiay Sonkar Alias Maharajin Sonkar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pappu Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Sunita Devi Misra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Maa Kunti Devi Education Samiti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Samleshwar Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others