Allahabad High Court
Smt. Maya And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 July, 2023
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140593-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10433 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Maya And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the first information report dated 13.06.2023, registered in Case Crime No.0163 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 368, 471 IPC, P.S. Sahabar, District Kasganj and not arrest the petitioners pursuant to the said FIR.
3. Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a photo copy of the message sent to learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 Sri Shailendra Kumar Verma that the case shall be taken up in the first call. Copy of the information slip i.e. message has been duly received and supplied which is taken on record.
4. We therefore, proceed to take up the matter.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the petitioners are major and married to each other out of their own free will, as such no offence is made out against the petitioners.
6. Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no absolute proof of age in the present case and as per the principal of the institution, the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is 13.05.2008, therefore, she is minor. Learned counsel for the petitioners disputing the same and submits that the same principal of the institution has issued school leaving certificate, clearly mentioned therein the age of petitioner no. 1 is 15.03.2004.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhani vs. State of U.P. reported in 2018 0 Supreme (SC) 1430 and submits that in all such matters Hon'ble Apex Court has directed for age determination test of the girl.
8. In view thereof, we direct that the petitioner no.1-Smt. Maya be produced before the Magistrate concerned, for recording her statement under section 164(1) and (5) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, she shall be brought before the Chief Medical Officer concerned by the I.O. of the case who shall constitute a panel of three doctors, for her age determination test (ossification test). Both these exercises must conclude within six weeks from today.
9. It is incumbent upon the petitioners to provide all necessary assistance to the Investigation Officer during investigation, however, the petitioners shall not be arrested during this period.
9. The arrest of the petitioners shall be subject to the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the girl and her age.
10. In the event, if it is found that she had attained the age of majority and her 164 Cr.P.C. statement favours the petitioner no.2, then the petitioners shall not be arrested till the submission of report by the police under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. OTHERWISE, the procedure of law would follow against the petitioners and the protection given to the petitioners would automatically stands vacated.
11. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.7.2023
Manoj
