Allowed

Smt Sumitra v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Nov 2020CRLW/393/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes an FIR regarding alleged abduction under IPC sections 363 and 342 and the POSCO Act. The High Court, relying on an ossification report indicating the girl was above 18 years old, held no case was made out for abduction. Related petitions filed by other parties were dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 42/2018 and investigation under Sections 363, 342 IPC and POSCO Act quashed. Bail bonds discharged in connected petitions.

Smt Sumitra Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1823/2018

¶3

Amisha Sharma D/o Kamal Nayan Sharma W/o Shishram Thalaur, R/o Village Roroo Badi, Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar 332317, Rajasthan At Present R/o Village Bagari, Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar, Raj.

¶4

Shisharam Thalaur S/o Mahesh Kumar, R/o Village Bagari, Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar Raj.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶8

The S.h.o. Police Station Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar Raj.

¶9

Mukesh Kumar S/o Bhanwar Lal Sharma, R/o Ward No. 5, Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar, Raj.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 393/2018

¶13

Smt. Sumitra W/o Late Shri Mahesh, R/o Bagadi, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Raj.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government Secretariat, Jai

¶17

Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.

¶18

Superintendent Of Police, Sikar, District Sikar.

¶19

Station House Officer, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 577/2018

¶22

Smt. Vidhya Devi Sharma W/o Shri Kamlesh Sharma, R/o Village Roru Badi, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Raj.

¶23

----Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶26

Superintendent Of Police, Sikar, District Sikar, Raj.

¶27

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1823/2018]

¶28

Sho, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Raj.

¶29

Shishram Thalaur S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar, R/o Village Bagari, Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Raj.

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad
	Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP
	Mr. Mohit Pareek

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶33

Order

¶34

12/11/2020

¶35

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1823/2018

¶36

The petitioners are stated to be living happily with the accused Shisharam Thalaur, after having married. A complaint lodged by the uncle of the petitioner No.1 regarding abduction has been challenged by both the petitioners, who are married couple. The petitioners, have come up with the case that they have duly married in Arya Samaj Mandir and are also majors. In view thereof, FIR is prayed to be quashed.

¶37

I have considered the submissions.

¶38

This Court vide order dated 09.04.2018 had stayed the further investigation and had directed for Ossification Test to be conducted. After Ossification Test the Medical Board has submitted its opinion that the girl is above 18 years of age and also has a pregnancy of eight weeks.

¶39

Keeping in view the Ossification Report in the opinion of this Court, no further proceedings are required to be conducted and the FIR No.42/2018 registered at Police Station Laxmangarh, Dist.

¶40

(3 of 3)

¶41

[CRLMP-1823/2018]

¶42

Sikar, Rajasthan under Section 363, 342 IPC and such

¶43

investigation and the FIR are quashed.

¶44

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 393/2018

¶45

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition has been rendered infructuous and a compromise has been arrived at between the parties.

¶46

In view thereof, the same is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶47

All the pending applications also stand dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶48

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 577/2018

¶49

In view of the order passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1823/2018 , the present petition filed by the mother is held to be become infructuous as the girl has been found to be above 18 years of age and her statement has also been recorded before the Court wherein she has herself stated that she has voluntarily gone with the petitioner No.2.

¶50

In view thereof, no case for abduction or under POSCO Act is made out. Hence, proceedings are quashed, bail bond was also stand discharged.

¶51

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶52

SAURABH YADAV /670/8-10

Smt Sumitra v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sumitra v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Singh S/O Shri Sardar Singh B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Kumar Meena S/O Shri Rameshwar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Swaroop Mathur S/O Late Ram Richpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Amisha Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sohan Singh Shekhawat Vs President Shekhawati Gramin Ba

Babulal S/O Balchand Vs State of Rajasthan