Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 506 (JK)

Zenit Kosser v. State of J&K

2018-07-12

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Through the instant writ petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:- “Direct the respondent No. 2 to produce the petitioner No. 1 before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate Mendhar for recording her statement afresh under Section 164-A of Code of Criminal Procedure in case titled State of J&K Vs. Owais Ahmed bearing FIR No. 36/2018 dated 23.05.2018 under Section 458/109, 376 RPC lodged against the petitioner No. 2 in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioners claim to be major, as such claim to have contracted marriage on 12.05.2018, according to their own will and choice. 3. The case of the petitioners is that after the solemnization of the marriage both of them started living happily, but after few days of marriage the parents of the petitioner No. 1-Zenit Kosser started pressuring the petitioner No. 1 to lodge false FIR against the petitioner No. 2-Owais Ahmed. It is stated that after the lodging of FIR No. 36/2018 dated 23.05.2018, under Section 458/109, 376 RPC the petitioner No. 1 was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Mendhar on 07.06.2018 by respondent No. 2 for recording her statement under Section 164-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and at the time of recording of statement, the mother of petitioner No. 1 was accompanying the petitioner No.1, and when she recorded her statement, her mother pressurized petitioner No. 1 to record wrong statement against the petitioner No. 2. 4. It is stated that at the present time both the petitioners residing with each other under the same roof and both are living their life happily. It is further stated that recording of petitioner No. 1 has been recording against her wishes and just under the pressure from the mother of petitioner No. 1. 5. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would be satisfied, if learned Judicial Magistrate, Mendhar is directed to dispose of the application moved by the petitioner No. 2 for re-recording the statement of the petitioner No. 1 afresh. There is no legal impediment in granting such relief. 6. 5. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would be satisfied, if learned Judicial Magistrate, Mendhar is directed to dispose of the application moved by the petitioner No. 2 for re-recording the statement of the petitioner No. 1 afresh. There is no legal impediment in granting such relief. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the facts of the case, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to learned Judicial Magistrate, Mendhar to dispose of the application moved by respondent No. 2 seeking re-recording of the statement of petitioner No. 1 under Section 164-A of Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance to law, expeditiously. 7. Writ petition disposed of, as above.