Allahabad High Court
Smt. Soni And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 July, 2023
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148744-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11419 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Soni And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Singh Sengar,Ajay Singh Sengar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiv Om Vikram Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Sri S.O.V.S. Chauhan, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama along with Sri R.O.V.S. Chauhan, Advocate, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ajay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.O.V.S Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the first information report dated 19.04.2022, registered in Case Crime No.293 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Auraiya, District Auraiya and not arrest the petitioners pursuant to the said FIR.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per AADHAR card, the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is 10.06.2003 and petitioner no. 2 is 02.07.1999 and both are major and have married with each other out of their own free will and their marriage has been registered, as such no offence is made out.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA submits that as per F.I.R. the petitioner no. 1 is aged about 15 years and as such she is a minor on the date of incident. He further submits that in the present case a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 409 of 2023 has been filed by the father of the petitioner no. 1, which is still pending before this Court.
6. 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 P. Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police decided on 18.07.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 1898 of 2023 and submits that in all such matters Hon'ble Apex Court has directed for age determination test of the girl.
7. In view thereof, we direct that the petitioner no.1-Soni 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.
8. 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.
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.
10. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.7.2023
Manoj
