Allahabad High Court
Kashish Kashyap And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Dept. ... on 30 August, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6307 of 2022
Petitioner :- Kashish Kashyap And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Dept. Of Home And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri D.S. Rana, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3 and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
Shri Janendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. He has filed short counter affidavit enclosed with Vakalatnama in court today which is taken on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- Kashish Kashyap and Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Paal, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 17.07.2022 registered as F.I.R. No.708 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Barabanki with a further prayer to not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
It has been argued by learned counsel for petitioners that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1- Kashish Kashyap is a major girl aged about 18 years as per Birth Certificate dated 18.03.2004 issued by G.B.S. Nursing Home contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, whereas the age of petitioner No.2- Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Paal is 22 years. There was love affair between the petitioner no. 1 and 2 and both have married to each other. They both have ready to organize marriage ceremony (at home) according to their customs & tradition in the month of January, 2023. He further argued that the police personnel has unnecessarily harassed the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. He next argued that the petitioner no. 1 had voluntarily left her parental home and entered into matrimonial alliance with petitioner no. 2. He further contended that once they are major and they have voluntarily married, it cannot be said that any cognizable offence against the petitioners is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. He 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 Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., cannot be approved of.
Shri Janendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.4 admitted the fact that petitioner no.1/victim is a major girl and she voluntarily eloped with petitioner no.2 and married with him. He further states that petitioners have fixed date of their arrange marriage at his home in the month of January, 2023, therefore, he do not want any further proceeding against them.
Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned A.G.A. has not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioners, in view of the above it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any cognizable offence.
Considering the submissions advanced by counsel for parties and considering the fact that victim/petitioner no.1 is a major girl, the writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned F.I.R. and all subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioners in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed.
There shall however be no order as to costs.
(Renu Agarwal, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 30.8.2022
Shubhankar
