Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2989 (ALL)

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

2015-09-18

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, MUKHTAR AHMAD

body2015
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This Criminal Misc. Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned FIR dated 8.12.2014 registered as Case Crime No.794 of 2014 under sections 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. PS. Mavana, District Meerut and further prayer is to direct the respondents not to arrest the petitionerd in pursuance of the impugned FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to High School certificate the date of birth of the petitioner no.1 Sonam is 10.1.1991. She being major on her sweet Will went with the petitioner no.2 and performed marriage which has been registered before the Registrar (Marriage), District Meerut on 20.12.2014, hence no offence is madce and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer. 5. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. If the contention of the petitioners is correct, then no offence is made out. But it appears that she has not been produced before the Magistrate concerned or before the Investigating Officer to verify the fact from the victim petitioner no.1. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature of allegation at this stage it is not a fit case for quashing of the First Information Report. 7. However, in the interest of justice considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner no 1 Sonam is major and she married on her own sweet-will then no offence against the petitioner no.2 is made out. Since as per prosecution case the petitioner no.1 was allured by the petitioner no.2, hence if she is produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within three weeks from today, then her statement will be recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Then after perusal of the statement the Investigating Officer will submit the police report. If there is apprehension of any threat from side of the informant or his men and if the S.S.P./S.P. concerned is approached to provide protection to them to appear before the Magistrate concerned to record the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C., he will consider the same to ensure the security and safety of the petitioners. 8. If there is apprehension of any threat from side of the informant or his men and if the S.S.P./S.P. concerned is approached to provide protection to them to appear before the Magistrate concerned to record the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C., he will consider the same to ensure the security and safety of the petitioners. 8. In view of the above, till any order is passed by the Magistrate, concerned, or till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. whichever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. 9. The interim order, if any, granted earlier, stands discharged. With the above observation this petition is finally disposed off.