Kumkum Kumari And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 6023 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18698 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Kumkum Kumari And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Prakash Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

Sri Kashi Naresh Mishra, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of respondent nos.4 which is taken on record.

Heard Sri Ravi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kashi Naresh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 and Sri Jai Narain, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 25.6.2019, registered as case crime no.593 of 2019, u/s 366 IPC, P.S. Quarsi, district Aligarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are major aged about 23 years and 21 years respectively as per high school certificate. There was love affair between the petitioner no.1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 26.6.2019 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Meerut. 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.2 is made out and 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.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 as well as learned AGA has not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix Smt.Kumkum Kumari was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner no.2, in view of the above it cannot be said that the petitioner nos.2 has committed any cognizable offence.

The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed.

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.

 (Raj Beer Singh, J.)       (Ramesh Sinha, J.) 
 
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
 
Gaurav