Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rani And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 17 July, 2023
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Surendra Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140851-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4884 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Rani And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Misra,Chandra Shekhar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Suresh Chandra Yadav
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Re: Criminal Misc. Amendment Application No. 3 of 2023
Heard Sri Yogendra Misra, learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners, Sri Suresh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the informant and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.
This amendment application is allowed. Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners is permitted to carry out necessary amendment during the course of the day.
Re: Writ Petition
Heard Sri Yogendra Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Suresh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the informant and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the first information report dated 12.2.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 16 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376, 366 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Khiri, District Prayagraj and not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the said FIR.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the petitioners are major and the petitioner no. 1 in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that they have married and have also applied registration of their marriage. It is next submitted that the victim-petitioner no. 1 has come forward to file present petition along with accused Chhotu Yadav @ Wanshraj and has filed present petition on her own affidavit and as such no offence has been made out. It is next submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is at present pregnant as well. It is next submitted that both the petitioners are major and have married with each other out of their own free will and as such no offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC is made out.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner no. 1 is minor.
Learned A.G.A. also opposed the petition and submits that as per his instructions the petitioner no. 1-Rani is Class-VIII pass, however, there is no proof of age.
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.
In view thereof, we direct that the petitioner no.1-Rani 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). These exercises must conclude on or before 30.08.2023 or within six weeks from today.
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.
In the event, if it is found that she had attained the age of majority 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.
With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.7.2023
Lalit Shukla
