Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2594 (ALL)

Ankit Kaushik v. State of U. P.

2016-07-27

RAMESH SINHA, SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for respondent no.4 today in Court is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Pankaj Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Prashant Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 7.5.2016 registered as Case Crime No.281 of 2016, under Section 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Jagdishpura, District Agra. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.1 are major aged about 18 years and 24 years respectively as per High School Certificate. There was love affair between the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 6.5.2016 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Krishna Nagar, Prayag, Allahabad, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He next argued that the petitioner no.2 had voluntarily left her parental home and entered into matrimonial alliance with petitioner no.1 and that she was major, it cannot be said that any cognizable offence against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 is made out, hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are major and they have voluntarily married, then to conceive in view of the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 (Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.P) decided on 02.08.2013), that, offence has been committed under Section 366 I.P.C., cannot be approved of. 5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned AGA have not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt.Arushi Tiwari was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner no.1, in view of the above it cannot be said that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 have committed any cognizable offence. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. 7. The impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioners in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed. There shall however be no order as to costs.