Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2526 (ALL)

NAZIYA v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-07-21

RAMESH SINHA, SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Kesshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Meraj Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned AGA for the State. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 22.11.2015 in Case Crime No. 603 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. and District Sambhal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the as per F.I.R., the prosecutrix namely Smt. Naziya petitioner No. 1 is stated to be minor aged about 16 years and as per voter I.D. card, she is aged about 19 years. He further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 voluntarily married with petitioner No. 2 Shane Alam and live with him at his house as husband and wife. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, 1965 AIR 942, 1965 SCR (1) 243. He further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is voluntarily living with petitioner No. 2, hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra learned AGA as well as counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that as per certificate of Nagar Nigam, the petitioner No. 1 is minor. He further submitted that the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Learned AGA as well as counsel for the respondent No. 4 has not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt. Naziya was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner No. 2. 6. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that petitioner No. 1 has voluntarily eloped with the petitioner No. 2 and also married with him. They are living together as husband and wife after getting their marriage registered before the Registrar Hindu Marriage, Ghaziabad. It is not a case of enticing away or taking away. The case of the petitioner is covered by the Judgement of Apex Court in the case of S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (Supra). 7. They are living together as husband and wife after getting their marriage registered before the Registrar Hindu Marriage, Ghaziabad. It is not a case of enticing away or taking away. The case of the petitioner is covered by the Judgement of Apex Court in the case of S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (Supra). 7. Thus, the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings taken against the petitioners in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed. 8. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. 9. There shall however be no order as to costs.