Allowed

Aniket v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2025CRLR/370/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against an order sending an alleged victim to a One Stop Centre. The court found her Section 183 BNSS statement showed she was about 19 and had married the revisionist willingly, held the marriage not declared void, set aside the magistrate's order, and directed her release from the One Stop Centre to live as she wished.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 3.01.2025 set aside; victim Riya released from One Stop Centre, Bareilly, free to live in society as per her sweet will.

Aniket vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23322

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 370 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Aniket Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satya Prakash Maurya,Surya Nath Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Satya Prakash Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶7

The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 3.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Bareilly in Misc. Application No.01 of 2025 (State Vs. Aniket) related with Case Crime No.435 of 2024 whereby, the application had been rejected and the alleged victim had been sent to One Stop Centre, Bareilly.

¶8

It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the victim's statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S had already been recorded wherein, she had categorically stated that she is aged about 19 years and she had married to accused with her sweet will and wants to live with him. It has further been contended that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had only relied on the investigation carried out by the Investigation Officer, wherein on the basis of some Transfer Certificate, age of the victim has been shown to be 16 years and 9 months.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has also relied on the judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No.1075/12 (482 Cr.P.C.) (Sonu Paswan Vs. State of U.P. and another) wherein, it had been held that merely because on the date of marriage, the girl was minor, her marriage ipso facto does not become void.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, on the strength of the aforesaid judgment, has argued that as on date the victim is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. she had

¶11

categorically stated that she is aged about 19 years and had married with the revisionist and wants to live with him therefore, there is no occasion for the trial court to compel the victim to live at One Stop Centre, Bareilly.

¶12

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, and I find that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S.had categorically stated that she is aged about 19 years and she had married with the revisionist and wants to live with him. For ready reference the statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. is extracted as under:-

¶13

" अवललकनबययनअऩतररतधयरय 183 बबएनएसएस......... बययनअनतररत धयरय 183 बबएनएसएस नययययलय एसबजजएम एफटबसब आज ददनयनक 01.01.2025 कलपबदडतयकलआईओपपनबतमजहरयकजदयरयनययययलयररययकज समकधयरय 183 बबएनएसएसकजबययनअअदकतकरनजहजतपलयययरययपबदडतय ककपहचयनआईओदयरयररययनयमसजककरयब।बययनपबदडतय/अपहतयर अनतररतधयरय 183 बबएनएसएसममररययपतनबअदनकजतदनवयसगयमसहसय थयनयफतजहरअजपशशचमबजनपदबरजलबयहसशपथबययनदजतबहहअदकमजरबउम 19 वररहह।ददनयनक 21.12.2024 कलममअदनकजतकजसयथइलयहयबयदचलब रयबऔरवहयनजयकरममनजऔरअदनकजतनज 22.12.2024 कलटरमहररजकरलब। अदनकजतसजशयदबमहनजअपनबमजरसजककहह।अदनकजतअजपरनचनदभयननजमजरज सयथकलईजबरदसतबनहहककथब।अजपरनऔरचनदभयनकयहमयरयशयदबसज कलईलजनयदजनयनहहहह।ममपढबललखबनहहहहन।ममनजकभबदकसबसककलसजकलई पढयईनहहककहह।मजरबफजरटबसबबनवयकरदरलरयजबकलदबरयबहह।दरलरयजब मजरजपदतअदनकजतऔरउनकजररशतजदयररकलजबरदसतबफसयरहजहम।बदलजमम पहसजमयनररहजहम।ममअबअपनजपदतअदनकजतकजसयथहबरहनयचयहतबहहअ।मजरज औरअदनकजतकजबबचकलईशयरबररकसमबनधनहहबनजहह।उकबययनपबदडतय सवजचछयसजददययरयय।बययनदजतजवकपबदडतयपरदकसबपकयरकयकलईडरयय दबयवनहहथय।बययनकलपबदडतयकलपढकरसपनयययरययलजसजउसनजसच बतयययउकबययनमजरजदयरयसपनकरतसदबकदकययरयय।हसतयदहनदबपठनबय पबदडतयररयय।उकबययनमजरजदयरयपबदडतयकजमजअअदकतदकययरयय।हसतय० अगमजबअपठनबयएसजबएमएफटबसबमहलदय।ददनयनदकत 01.01.2025।"

¶14

Once there is categorical statement given by the victim under Section 183 B.N.S.S. that she is aged about 19 years and had married to the revisionist, there is no occasion for the trial court to treat her as minor on the basis of some flimsy educational document collected by the Investigating Officer. Even otherwise, this Court finds that till date marriage of the revisionist with the victim has not been declared void therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court vide its judgment rendered in Criminal Misc. Case No.1705/12 (482 Cr.P.C.) (Sonu Paswan Vs. State of U.P. and another), she would be deemed to be legally wedded

¶15

wife of the revisionist. The victim, in categorical terms, had stated that she wants to live in the society as per her sweet will. Once, in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the victim had stated that she is aged about 19 years, she cannot be compelled to live in one Stop Centre against her will.

¶16

I find that the trial court, while passing the order dated 3.01.2025, had committed manifest error of law and fact both.

¶17

Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Bareilly in Misc. Application No.01 of 2025 (State Vs. Aniket) is hereby set aside.

¶18

Let Riya W/o Aniket i.e. the victim of Case Crime No.435 of 2024, registered under Sections 137(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Fatehganj West, District Bareilly, be released from the One Stop Centre, Bareilly forthwith and she may be allowed to live in the society as per her sweet will.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.2.2025

¶20

SFH

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHIM HUSAIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aniket v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniket v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Virendra Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlawati and 38 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Kheri and 5 Others

Chandra Mani Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Smt Sumitra Devi vs State of Up and 4 Others

Rahul Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikash Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another