Disposed

Smt. Rinky Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2024CRLP/1571/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court framed issues in a criminal writ petition challenging an FIR under Section 366 IPC. The Court recorded the marriage date and claimed age but held preliminary contentions subject to evidence collection during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner no. 2 shall not be arrested unless there is sufficient and credible evidence indicating commission of an offence or that the petitioners were not of marriageable age on the date of marriage

Smt. Rinky Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1571 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Rinky Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhanu Singh,Rajesh Kumar Gupta

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Petitioners claim to have married each other of their own volition and also that on the date of their marriage i.e., 13.02.2024 they were of marriageable age. Petitioners rely on their High School Certificate annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. Even in the FIR itself, the informant-father has mentioned the age of petitioner no. 1 as 19 years and as the petitioners have married each other of their own volition no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out.

¶8

Prima facie, the contention appears to be correct subject, however, to any evidence being collected in this regard during investigation.

¶9

Let notice be issued to the opposite party no. 4.

¶10

Pleadings be exchanged within eight weeks.

¶11

List thereafter.

¶12

In view of the submissions made, it is hereby provided that the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within next fifteen days to get their statements recorded.

¶13

Subject to the above, petitioner no. 2 shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 047/2024, under Section 366 I.P.C., Police StationMadhoganj, District- Hardoi, unless there is sufficient and credible evidence available indicating commission of any offence by him as alleged in the impugned FIR and/or that on the date of marriage the petitioners were not of marriageable age.

¶14

The petitioners shall, however, cooperate in the investigation. If they do not do so then it can be made a ground for seeking vacation of this interim order.

¶15

[Narendra Kumar Johari, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 5.3.2024 Santosh/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Rinky Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rinky Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rudra Prasad Tripathi and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Abhay Mishra (in Fir Baistba Abhay Mishra) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Shiv Govind and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and Others

Komal Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Jayesh Goyal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Govt. of U.P. Lko and Others

Musheer Khan and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another