Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4117 (ALL)

Umme Aiman @ Umme Aiman Khatoon v. State of U. P.

2016-12-20

ALOK KUMAR MUKHERJEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Mukherjee,J. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicants today. Let the same be taken on record. List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to contest this application. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar-VI, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State as also perused the record. The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1922 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No. 1240 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs. Firoz @ Firoz Ahmad and others), under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Kolhui, District Maharajganj, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed from the evidence and material on record collected during investigation and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the applicants has further contended that the applicants no.1 and 2 had fell in love and had also solemnized their marriage on 06.09.2012, according to muslim rites/customs, after depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as Mehar. A copy of the said Nikahnam is annexed as Annexure-4 to the application. According to the Medico-Legal Report dated 06.10.2012 of the District Hospital, Maharajganj, the applicant no.1 is aged about 20 years. According to the High School Mark sheet of the applicant no.2, his date of birth is 12.08.1988. He further submitted that from the material filed on record, it is clear that they were major at the time of the incident in question and were also living as husband and wife. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also revealed that she was major and had performed marriage with the applicant no.2 on her own free will and she is peacefully living with him. It has lastly been argued that at present with the said wedlock two children were born, namely Tabsumjaha and Mohd. Shahil. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned proceeding but could not dispute the facts argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. It has lastly been argued that at present with the said wedlock two children were born, namely Tabsumjaha and Mohd. Shahil. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned proceeding but could not dispute the facts argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2006 (2) CCSC 968 (SC) and Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 . I have gone through the rival submissions made at bar and perused the material on record. The Apex Court, while dealing with a similar matter as the case in hand, has observed in the case of Lata Singh (supra), at para 14 and 15, which are being reproduced herein below : - "14. This case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she like. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband or her husband's relatives. 15. We are of the opinion that no offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the Court as well as of the administrative machinery at the instance of the petitioner's brothers who were only furious because the petitioner married outside her caste. 15. We are of the opinion that no offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the Court as well as of the administrative machinery at the instance of the petitioner's brothers who were only furious because the petitioner married outside her caste. We are distressed to note that instead of taking action against the petitioner's brothers for their unlawful and high-handed acts (details of which have been set out above) the police has instead proceeded against the petitioner's husband and his relatives." After considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the material available on record, the facts and circumstances of the present case and the aforementioned principle laid down by the Apex Court, this court is of the opinion that since both the applicants no.1 and 2 at all relevant time were major, hence, they were free to marry anyone they like and for that there was/is no bar in Muslim Marriage Act or any other law. Hence, no any offence is committed by the applicants and therefore, the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the court as well as of the administrative machinery which was set into motion at the instance of the opposite party no.2/father of the bride. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant application stands allowed. Consequently, the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1922 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No. 1240 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs. Firoz @ Firoz Ahmad and others), under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Kolhui, District Maharajganj, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj is hereby quashed.