Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 601 (ALL)

Priyanka Devi v. State Of U. P.

2018-03-13

KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH, RAMESH SINHA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Sri R.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.K. Srivastava holding brief of Sri Margret Garima Roberts, learned counsel for the caveator- respondent no.4, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 25.2.2018 registered as Case Crime No.41 of 2018,, under Sections 366, 368, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are major aged about 25 years and 22 years respectively as per their High School Mark-sheets, copy of which have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. He further submits that there was love affair between petitioner no.1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage with each other at Byas Temple Kalpi, District Jalaun on 6.2.2018 and thereafter they have also got their marriage registered before the Registrar, Hindu Marriage, Kalpi, Jalaun on 12.2.2018, a copy of their marriage registration certificate dated 12.2.2018 is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. He next argued that the petitioner no.1 had voluntarily left her parental home and entered into matrimonial alliance with petitioner no.2 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. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the caveator as well as learned AGA 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 counsel for the caveator and learned AGA have not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix-Smt. Priyanka Devi was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner nos. 5. Learned counsel for the caveator and learned AGA have not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix-Smt. Priyanka Devi was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner nos. 2 to 8, in view of the above it cannot be said that the petitioner nos.2 to 8 have committed any cognizable offence. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. 6. The impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioners in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed. 7. There shall however be no order as to costs. 8. Learned counsel for the caveator- respondent no.4 states that petitioner no.8 has threatened him not to pursue the matter, to which learned counsel for the petitioners states that the said fact appears to be incorrect, but he undertakes that no such incident would take place in future.