Kuldeep vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9041 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Kuldeep vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 April, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55947-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2198 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Kuldeep
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Prakash Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents, Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 10.01.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0015 of 2025 under Section 87 of the BNS 2023, at Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

3. The impugned FIR was lodged by the informant alleging that his 19-year-old daughter, left home without informing anyone and was later discovered to have been lured away by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR is a malicious attempt to harass the petitioner, as the alleged victim, is a major (20 years old) and left her parental home voluntarily to escape abuse. It is argued that she was under severe pressure from her family, who opposed her relationship with the petitioner, and even threatened her life. The petitioner, though not yet 21 (the legal age for marriage), provided her shelter to ensure her safety. The counsel asserts that no offence under Section 87 BNS 2023 is made out, as there was no inducement or abduction. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the judgment in Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr reported in AIR 2018 SC 2099 as well as the judgement and order dated 5.12.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17046 of 2022 (Smt. Juli Kumari and another vs. State of UP and 2 others).

5. Learned A.G.A., on instructions, states that the statement of the victim has already been recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, in which she has not supported the prosecution version. As per the ossification report, she is aged about 19 years, and he has no objection if the matter is decided on merits.

6. Heard rival submissions, perused the record and respectfully considered the judgments cited at Bar.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court's in Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr (Supra) has 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.

8. In Smt. Juli Kumari and another vs. State of UP and 2 others (Supra), the Coordinate Bench, in identical circumstances, has allowed the petition and quashed the FIR. For ready reference, the said judgment is quoted as under:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA.

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 25.10.2022 being Case Crime No.0475 of 2022 under Section 366 IPC, P.S. Saurikh, Distt. Kannauj and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

Placing reliance on the Aadhar Card of the victim girl showing her date of birth as 1.1.2004, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is a major girl aged about more than 18 years on the date of incident.

The present petition has been filed with the declaration, jointly by both the petitioners no.1 & 2 that the petitioner no.1 had left her paternal home out of her own sweet will and being a major girl, she is free to take her choice to perform marriage with the petitioner no.2.

The present petition, however, has been filed on the assertion that no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out as the petitioner no.1 is a major girl. The entire criminal case lodged by the respondent no.3 is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law.

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 Aadhar Card appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, no dispute has been raised by learned AGA. It is, thus, clear that both the petitioners are major. The fact that the present writ petition has been filed with the declaration by the victim girl and that she is living voluntarily in the company of the petitioner no.2, is supported with the signature of the victim girl on the Vakalatnama. Once the age of the victim girl is not in dispute, the petitioners no.1 & 2 cannot be made accused for committing offence under Section 366 IPC as victim had left her home in order to live with the petitioner no.2.

We make it clear that the question in the present petition is not about the validity of marriage of two individuals i.e. petitioners no.1 & 2. 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 petitioners are major and the petitioner no.1 has come up with the categorical stand that she had left her home with the petitioner no.2 willingly and is living with him as a married woman.

In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The FIR dated 25.10.2022 being Case Crime No.0475 of 2022 under Section 366 IPC, P.S. Saurikh, Distt. Kannauj 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."

9. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that since the age of the victim is not in dispute, and she herself has not supported the prosecution version and has left her home of her own free will, the petitioner cannot be treated as an accused for committing an offence under the aforesaid section, as the victim had left her home to live with the petitioner.

10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that from the first information report no offence under the aforesaid Section is made out, inasmuch as the victim (major) has come up with the categorical stand that she had left her home with the petitioner willingly

11. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Consequently, the First Information Report dated 10.01.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0015 of 2025 under Section 87 of the BNS 2023, at Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

12. We further clarify that the observations made qua the marriage is only for disposal of instant matter and would have no bearing qua their respective rights and the same is to be pressed before the competent court/ authority.

Order Date :- 16.4.2025

NLY

(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)