Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 183 (ALL)

VEER BAHADUR v. STATE OF U P

2010-01-13

R.K.AGRAWAL, SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL

body2010
( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 6. 7. 2008 in case crime No. 1282 of 2008 under Section 363 and 366, IPC, P. S. Civil Lines, district Muzaffarnagar. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri Deepak Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri sudhir Mehrotra, learned AGA for the respondents No. 1,2 and 3. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1 Veer bahadur fell in love with petitioner No. 2 Manju. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner No. 2 is major and left her house for marriage voluntarily, but the brother of petitioner No. 2 lodged the FIR dated 6. 7. 2008 against petitioner No. 1 alleging therein that the petitioner No. 1 kidnapped his sister Manju aged 16 years. It was further submitted that the age of the petitioner No. 2 was 22 years and she married with the petitioner No. 1 out of her own sweet-will, no offence under Se ctions 363, 366, IPC is made out and the FIR is liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) INITIALLY the petition was filed by Veer Bahadur, petitioner No. 1 but with the permission of the Court, vide order dated 22. 9. 2008, the alleged kidnapee Manju was impleaded as petitioner No. 2. On 22. 9. 2008, the following order was passed by a Division Bench consisting of Hobble Yatindra Singh, J. and Honble K. N. Ojha, J. : There is no proof that petitioner No. 2 is major. In these circumstances, it is appropriate that petitioners may appear before the CJM, Muzaffar Nagar before 31. 10. 2008. The CJM, Muzaffar Nagar may get the petitioner No. 2 medically examined and thereafter record the statement of petitioner No. 2 and send the same to this Court. In case the girl is found to be minor after medical examination, the CJM will be at liberty to pass suitable order under section 98 Crpc regarding interim custody of the girl. Till the CJM passes appropriate legal order after getting the medical report, the petitioners will not be arrested in the aforementioned case crime. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not appear before the CJM, Muzaffar Nagar before 31. 10. 2008, the interim order will stand automatically vacated. Till the CJM passes appropriate legal order after getting the medical report, the petitioners will not be arrested in the aforementioned case crime. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not appear before the CJM, Muzaffar Nagar before 31. 10. 2008, the interim order will stand automatically vacated. ( 5 ) IN compliance of the order dated 22. 9. 2008, the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Manju appeared before the CJM, Muzaffar Nagar. Her statement on oath was recorded by CJM, Muzaffar Nagar on 6. 11. 2008 and she was sent for medical examination by CMO, Muzaffar Nagar to ascertain her age. ( 6 ) CMO, Muzaffar Nagar vide his report dated 31. 10. 2008 found the age of petitioner No. 2 to be about 20 years. The petitioner No. 2 Manju deposed before cjm, Muzaffar Nagar that she went away with Veer Bahadur out of her own sweet-will and married him at Panipat. She further stated that she was not under pressure of any person. ( 7 ) THE original statement of Smt. Manju and the certificate issued by CMO, muzaffar Nagar has been forwarded to this Court by CJM, Muzaffar Nagar vide his letter No. 341 dated 7. 11. 2008. ( 8 ) ON the basis of certificate issued by the CMO, Muzaffar Nagar, it is evident that the age of petitioner No. 2 was about 20 years in October, 2008 and accordingly she was major on the date of the alleged offence. The petitioner No. 2 stated before the CJM, Muzaffar Nagar that she went away with petitioner No. 1 and married him out of her own sweet-will without any pressure. It is thus a clear case of love-marriage and petitioner No. 2 Smt. Manju was not kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner No. 1. ( 9 ) WE are satisfied that no criminal offence was committed by the petitioner No. 1 and the FIR lodged by Gulshan, the brother of petitioner No. 2 is an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. ( 10 ) THE petition is allowed. ( 11 ) THE FIR dated 6. 7. 2008 in case crime No. 1282 of 2008 under Sections 363 and 366, IPC, P. S. Civil Lines, district Muzaffarnagar and all proceedings connected therewith are quashed. .