Smt Jyoti And 3 Others vs State Of Up And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9649 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt Jyoti And 3 Others vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 24 April, 2025

Author: Vivek Kumar Birla

Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62476-DB
 
Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7971 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt Jyoti And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
 

Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit placing on record the certified copy of the impugned FIR filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri P.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned AGA for the respondents and Sri Sanjay Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

3. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 29.3.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 181 of 2025, under Sections 87, 61(2), 351(3) BNS, PS Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that admittedly the petitioner no. 1-Jyoti is aged about 22 years even as per the FIR and petitioner no. 2-Yogesh Sharma is also major and petitioner no. 1 has willingly left home with petitioner no. 2 and both have performed marriage. It is submitted that petitioner no. 1 (victim) has come forward to challenge the present impugned FIR by filing joint affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the informant submits that earlier the petitioners no. 1 and 2 had approached this Court by filing writ petition being Writ-C No. 4976 of 2025 (Smt. Jyoti and another vs. State of UP and 5 others) wherein they were directed to appear before the court. He pointed out that they did not appear on the next date fixed by the court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to passing of the aforesaid order dated 19.2.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 4976 of 2025 (Smt. Jyoti and another vs. State of UP and 5 others) the petitioners no. 1 and 2 have performed the marriage and their marriage was registered on 7.2.2025, copy of the marriage certified whereof has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the petition and after the first information report was lodged, the said petition has become infructuous.

7. Learned counsel for the informant during course of arguments could not dispute the age of the petitioner no. 1 (victim) and that she is major and he also could not dispute the correctness of the marriage certificate.

8. Learned AGA appearing for the State respondents opposed the petition, however, could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no offence as alleged is made out as the petitioner no. 1 is a major girl and the entire criminal case lodged by the informant is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law. It is further submitted that as per Aadhar Card, date of birth of petitioner no.1-Jyoti is 11.10.2022 and the date of birth of petitioner no. 2-Yogesh Sharma is 18.6.1992 and as such, the petitioners no. 1 and 2 are major on the date of incident and they have married on their sweet will and no offence has been committed. By drawing attention to Annexure-4 to the petition, it is submitted that marriage of the petitioners no.1 and 2 has been registered on 7.2.2025 Reliance has been placed on a judgement and order dated 5.12.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17046 of 2022 (Smt. Juli Kumari and another vs. State of UP and 2 others) to submit that under identical circumstances the petition was allowed and FIR therein was quashed.

10. The aforesaid order dated 5.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17046 of 2022 (Smt. Juli Kumari and another vs. State of UP and 2 others) 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."

11. 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, the petitioners no. 1 and 2 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.

12. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The First Information Report dated 29.3.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 181 of 2025, under Sections 87, 61(2), 351(3) BNS, PS Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

13. We, however, clarify that while deciding the present petition, we have not looked into the validity of marriage of the petitioners.

Order Date :- 24.4.2025

Abhishek