Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 41 (ALL)

Shiv Kumar v. State of U. P. Thru Secy.

2015-01-09

MOHD.TAHIR, V.K.SHUKLA

body2015
JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the FIR dated 14.09.2014 registered as Case Crime No.370 of 2014 Under Sections 363,366 IPC, and 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Meerapur, District MUzaffarnagar. 2. Today, lawyers are on strike and Shiv Kumar son of Bhagmal is present in Court alongwith Ravita, daughter of respondent no.4 and his submission is that both of them are major and on their own freewill they have entered into matrimonial alliance and have resolved to leave their respective parental house, then to conceive of this situation that any offence has been committed by them, is too for fetched. 3. Learned AGA has resisted the request that has been made on behalf of petitioner by contending that the girl in question as per the FIR is minor, aged about 17 years, as such no interference be made. 4. Once Ravita wife of Shiv Kumar, petitioner no. 1 both are present in Court today and claiming that they have voluntarily married, then as to whether Ravita wife of Shiv Kumar, petitioner no. 1 is minor or major and such disputed question of fact can always be determined on the basis of evidence adduced before the concerned Magistrate. 5. In view of this once FIR discloses a cognizable offence, however, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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, and he shall satisfy himself as to whether the girl is major or not and shall record her statement 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. In case of default, it shall be open to the police authority concerned to arrest the petitioners. 6. If the kidnapped girl is found major and she does not support the F.I.R. version, the petitioner shall not be arrested till submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C., but the petitioner 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. 7. 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. 7. It is directed that issue of custody of the alleged kidnapped girl shall be decided by the learned Magistrate concerned in accordance with law. 8. 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 direction this petition is finally disposed of.