Allahabad High Court
Sandhya Kumari & Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 3 October, 2017
Bench: Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 23420 of 2017
Petitioner :- Sandhya Kumari & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Kumar Pandey,Peeyush Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Nijaz Ahmad Advocate, on behalf of complainant, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
This criminal misc. writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned FIR dated 05.08.2017 registered as case crime no. 82/2017, under Sections 363, 366 IPC & 3(2)(5Ka) S.C./S.T. Act in Police Station Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and further prayer is issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party no. 3 not to take nay coercive action including the arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 Sandhya Kumari, daughter of the opposite party no. 3 is major and she on her own sweet will married with petitioner no. 2 Firoz Ahmad after conversion of the religion. Both the petitioners are major and they are living with each other as husband and wife. Since marriage was against the wishes of parents of petitioner no. 1 and as such, no offence is made out. Hence in view of the facts the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that since no FIR prima facie commission of offence is disclosed, hence the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.
Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that in the judgment and order passed in Smt. Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra and another vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2015 (1) ADJ 755, the Court held that if the conversion of the religion was only for the purposes of marriage, the same is void and marriage is also void because it is intercaste marriage.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature of allegation at this stage it is not a fit case for quashing of the First Information Report.
However, in the interest of justice considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner no.1 is produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned within three weeks from today, then the Magistrate concerned will get her age verified from the record and if she is found major her statement will be recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. After perusal of the statement the Investigating Officer will submit the police report. If there is apprehension of any threat from side of the informant or his men, the petitioners will approach the S.S.P./S.P. concerned to provide protection to them to appear before the before the Magistrate concerned to record the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C., he/she will consider the same to ensure the security and safety of the petitioners.
In view of the above, till any order is passed by the Magistrate, concerned, or till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. whichever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation.
With the above observation this petition is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 3.10.2017
Monika
