Allahabad High Court
Ritik Sahani vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 December, 2022
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18757 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ritik Sahani
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Parmeshwar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rakesh Pati Tiwari
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Sri Parmeshwar Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Amit Sinha learned A.G.A. for the State.
This petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R dated 18.10.2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0735 of 2022, under section 366 IPC, Police Station-Dhoomanganj, District-Prayagraj.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both petitioner and victim are major and they have solemnised their marriage out of their own free will and they are living with each other as husband and wife. They have solemnised their marriage on 3.10.21022. Marriage registration certificate dated 15.10.2022 is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Since petitioners are already living as husband and wife out of their own free will and also they are major, as such, no case under Section 366 IPC is made out against them hence, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr reported in AIR 2018 SC 2099, wherein it was held that to constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, that such abduction took place with the intent that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction. Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal section. So far as charge under Section 366 IPC is concerned, mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC.
As regards the age of the victim girl, as indicated in the High School Examination Certificate-cum-Marks Sheet, which is appended as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, no dispute has been raised by learned A.G.A. or by learned counsel for the informant. It is, thus, clear that both the petitioner and victim are major. The fact, that the present writ petition has been filed with the declaration by the victim girl that she is living voluntarily in the company of the petitioner.Once the age of the victim girl is not in dispute, then the petitioner & victim cannot be made accused for committing offence under Section 366 IPC as victim had left her home in order to live with the petitioner.
We make it clear that the question in the present petition is not about the validity of marriage of two individuals i.e. petitioner and his wife. Rather, the issue is about the life and liberty of two individuals in choosing a partner or their right to freedom of choice as to with whom they would like to live.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that from the first information report no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out, inasmuch as, both the petitioner and victim are major and the petitioner no.1 has come up with the categorical stand that she had left her home with the petitioner willingly and is living with him as a married woman.
In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The F.I.R dated 18.10.2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0735 of 2022, under section 366 IPC, Police Station-Dhoomanganj, District-Prayagraj as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.
We, however, clarify that while deciding the present petition, we have not looked into the validity of marriage of the petitioners.
Order Date :- 6.12.2022
n.u.
