The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 363 IPC and a prayer not to arrest the petitioners. The court held that no case for interference was made out.
Writ petition dismissed; left open for petitioner to apply for anticipatory bail/bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99930-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6246 of 2023
Petitioner :- Amit And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Shiromani Yadav
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shiv Kant Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A for the State-respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 19.03.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 78 of 2023, under Sections 363 I.P.C., Police Station- Munda Pandey, DistrictMoradabad. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the victim was never kidnapped and petitioners have been falsely implicated. It is asserted that both the parties are major and have performed marriage.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant submits that as per first information report itself, the victim is aged about 15 years and therefore, consent is immaterial and even otherwise, there is no proof of such marriage and thus, cognizable offence is made out.
Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that cognizable offence is made out.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 9.5.2023 KS
Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and prayer for non-arrest is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh)Referred¶11
Amit And 4 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Vivek Kumar Birla
Surendra Singh-I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
