Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1683 (ALL)

Hemaltesh v. State of U. P. Thru Secy.

2015-07-01

V.K.SHUKLA, VIJAY PRAKASH PATHAK

body2015
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and Shri S.P. Giri, Advocate as well as Shri D.K. Kesharwani, Advocate for the complainant. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the first information report dated 5.6.2015 registered as Case Crime No. 329 of 2015 under Sections 363/366 IPC at police station Jewar, district Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. Petitioner no.1 Smt. Hemaltesh claims that she is major and on her own freewill she has entered into matrimonial alliance with petitioner no. 2 Baghmal s/o Veerpal. Petitioners are contending before this Court that as far as they are concerned, they are major and have entered into matrimonial alliance on their own freewill, as such, no offence under Sections 363/366 IPC is made out. 4. Shri S.P. Giri, Advocate as well as Shri D.K. Kesharwani, Advocate, appearing for the complainant before this Court have resisted the request, that has been made on behalf of petitioners, by contending that first information report in question proceeds to describe the girl in question to be a minor and in support of the same school leaving certificate has been prouduced by them wherein the date of birth of girl in question has been mentioned as 5.7.2001. 5. This Court proceeds to peruse the first information report and this Court cannot going to this question as to whether Smt. Hemaltesh is major or minor but the fact of the matter is that petitioners are present in the Court and they have been identified by their advocate and they are claiming that they have voluntarily married. 6. In view of the above no case for quashing of the first information report is made out. The prayer in that regard is rejected. However, considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged kidnapped girl is major and she has performed the marriage with her freewill and consent, it is directed that if the alleged kidnapped girl appears/is produced before the court of learned Magistrate concerned, within a month from today, he shall satisfy himself as to whether the girl is major or not and shall record her statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate concerned shall fix a date for the same purpose. Till then, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners. Till then, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners. In case of default, it shall be open to the police authority concerned to arrest the petitioners. 7. If the kidnapped girl is found major and she does not support the F.I.R. version, the petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C., but the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. In case, the alleged kidnapped girl appears to be minor or if she is major but supports the prosecution version, it shall be open to the police authority to arrest the accused. 8. It is directed that issue of custody of the alleged kidnapped girl shall be decided by the learned Magistrate concerned, in accordance with law. 9. It is further directed that in case the petitioners approach the S.S.P. concerned to provide them protection for the purposes of appearing before the court concerned to record the statement of the kidnapped girl under section 164 Cr.P.C., and for medical examination, the same shall be provided. With the above observations/directions writ petition stands disposed of.