Rubee Verma And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7811 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2022 of 2023
 
Petitioner :- Rubee Verma And 6 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel on behalf of the complainant, is taken on record.

Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3, Shri Rajesh Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party not to arrest the petitioners and with further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 28.02.2023 registered as FIR no.0040 of 2023 under Section 366 I.P.C., police station Rampur Kalan, District Sitapur.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the victim/petitioner no.1- Rubee Verma, as per FIR, is a major girl aged about 22 years. There was love realtionship between the petitioner no.1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 21.02.2023, a copy of marriage certificate is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He further submits that the police personnel is unnecessarily harassing 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 Section 366 I.P.C., cannot be approved of.

Learned counsel appearing for private respondent could not dispute the fact that petitioner no.1 is a major girl.

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 victim was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by petitioner no.2, hence it cannot be said that petitioner no.2 has 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 petitioner no.2 in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

(Narendra Kumar Johari, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 17.3.2023

Arnima