Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2200 (ALL)

Manjeet Singh v. State of U. P. Thru Secy.

2016-06-15

AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the FIR dated 25.5.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 0658 of 2016 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.2, Bhawna is major and on her own freewill walked out from her parental house and has entered into matrimonial alliance with Manjeet Singh, petitioner no. 1. 3. Learned AGA has resisted the request that has been made on behalf of petitioners by contending that the girl in question as per the FIR is minor and aged about 15 years, as such no interference be made. 4. Smt. Bhawna, petitioner no. 2 and Manjeet Singh, petitioner no. 1, both are present in Court today, and both have been identified by counsel for the petitioners and they are claiming that they have voluntarily married. 5. This Court has the occasion to peruse the FIR and perusal of the FIR reflects that as per the complainant petitioner no.2 is minor, as such, this Court is of the considered view that such disputed question of fact of age cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as to whether Bhawna, petitioner no. 2 is minor or major and such disputed question of fact can always be determined on the basis of evidence adduced before the concerned Magistrate. 6. In view of this once FIR discloses a cognizable offence as such no case for quashing of the same is made out and 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, 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. 7. 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 direction this petition is finally disposed of.