Allowed

Hardeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2024A482/8333/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings under Sections 363 and 366 IPC arising from an alleged age-dispute marriage, the Allahabad High Court allowed the petition. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding age determination and noting the victim's affidavit confirming voluntary marriage and pregnancy, the court concluded no purpose would be served by continuing th

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. 14 of 2022 are quashed qua the applicant.

Hardeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65630

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8333 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hardeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Ag,Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Affidavit filed on behalf of the victim/opposite party no. 3 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶9

The present application has been filed with following main prayer:

¶10

"to quash the impugned Order Dated 14.08.2024 and Charge-Sheet dated 22.04.22 in Case Crime No.14/2022, under section 363, 366 I.P.C. lodged at Police Station-Sampurna Nagar, District-Kheri, pending before Session Judge Kheri as contained in Annexure No.1& 2 to this petition."

¶11

It is stated that an FIR was lodged by the father of the victim indicating therein that the applicant enticed away the minor daughter of the applicant and in view of the allegations levelled in the FIR the same was registered as Case Crime No. 14 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 IPC at Police Station - Sampurna Nagar, District - Kheri.

¶12

After lodging of the FIR, the statement(s) of the victim under Section(s) 161 and 164 on 11.04.2022 and 12.04.2022, respectively were recorded, which are on record as Annexure Nos. 4 and 5 to the application. According to these statements, the opposite party no. 3/victim, a major, and the applicant were known to each other for the past give years but the marriage could not be solemnized because the victim was minor and after becoming the major the victim, on her own volition, left the house of her parents and solemnized the marriage with the applicant and at said point of time, the victim was matriculation passed and a major.

¶13

It is also stated that a perusal of Annexure No. 6 and photographs annexed with the same indicate that the applicant and the victim

¶14

solemnized the marriage and they are not living a happy married life under one roof.

¶15

It is also stated that according to the case of the prosecution, at the time of incident, the victim was aged about 17 years, 7 months and 23 days but the date of birth indicated by the prosecution i.e. 16.04.2004 is not correct as there is no genuine authentic proof related to entering the said date of birth in school records.

¶16

It is also stated that the victim at present is having pregnancy of about six weeks.

¶17

The affidavit of the victim supports the story of the applicant. The relevant para of the same is extracted herein-under:

¶18

"3. deponent and petitioner have love affair and deponent gone with applicant with her own will deponents father lodge an FIR against applicant.

¶19

4. That the content of para no.08 and 09 of the application are true victim and applicant married on 31.01.2022 in Araya Samaj Mandir Aliganj, Lucknow and Living as husband and wife and deponent is also pregnant.

¶20

5. That the content of para no.10 and 11 of the application need no comment.

¶21

6. That the content of para no.12, 13, and 14 of the application need no comment and deponent didn't want to do any further proceeding against applicant and want to quash proceeding against applicant.

¶22

7. That the content of para no. 15, 16 and 17 of the application are true. Deponent didn't want any further proceeding against applicant

¶23

8. That the content of para no. 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the application are true and the deponent want no any further proceeding against applicant and the hon'ble court be pleased to quash the entire proceeding against the applicant is session trail no. 537/2022 case crime no.14/2022."

¶24

It is also stated that taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also the age of the victim recorded in the school records if the same is taken on its face value then in view of the fact of the instant case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397 , shall be extended in favour of the

¶25

applicant and the opposite party no.3/victim both.

¶26

It is also stated that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of victim, who is having pregnancy of about six weeks, and the applicant as also the future of foetus would be ruined.

¶27

Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra) , Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 as also taking note of the nature of dispute/crime and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of opposite party no. 3/victim and the applicant as also the future of foetus would be ruined and further, that in the given facts of the case chances of conviction are extremely bleak, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. 14 of 2022 , quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

¶28

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶29

Order Date :- 21.9.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hardeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt.Anita Devi and Others

Assistant Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C Sitapur Depot Hardoi Vs Mahesh and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Deputy Manager Lucknow Vs Preeti and 5 Ors.

Urmila Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Girish and Ors. vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Arpit Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another