The main legal point established is that without a certified copy of the FIR and sufficient evidence, a petition to quash the FIR cannot be accepted.

Without appending a certified copy of the First Information Report dated 21-3-99, which appears to have given rise to registration of crime case No. 129 of 1999 under Sections 363/366 I. P. S. , PS. Sasni Gate, District Aligarh, the petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash it. They have merely appended a typed copy of the alleged First Information Report as Annexure-1. From a perusal of Annexure-1 it does not appear crystal clear as to whether this document is a true copy of the First Information Report in ques tion.

2. Be that as it may, from a perusal of the document appended as Annexure-1 this much is clear that one Kumar Sharma son of Sri Rewati Prasad Sharma lodged a written report on 21-3-1999 with Thanad- hyaksha, Sasni Gate, district Aligarh to the effect that today at about 5 a. m. in the morning his daughter Rekha, aged 16 years, was enticed away by Ranveer Singh son of Ram Das and Sumar P&lalias Bhoos and that Dev Dutt son of Sri R. Prasad Sharma and Mohan Lal son of Sri Rewati Prasad Sharma had seen them. It has also been stated that his daughter has left be hind a letter. Apparently Annexure-1 is not a true copy inasmuch as in it there are vital omissions. In Annexure-1 Ranveer Singh (Petitioner No. 1 herein) has been described as Ranveer Singh and husband of Rekha which is apparently untrue. The X- rox copy of this document, which is at page No. 12, is not at all legible. By that as it may as no allegation has been made by Respondent No. 3 whose name is Anjani Kumar Sharma and not Kumar Sharma as mentioned in Annexure 1, who was the informant and father of Rekha, against her, therefore, there is no question of quashing of the first information report at her instance. Thus, the writ petition on behalf of Petitioner No. 2 is misconceived and is dismissed accordingly.

3. Coming to the prayer of the Petitioner No. 1, it also cannot be allowed by us in exercise of our powers under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India inas much as nothing tangible has been produced by Petitioner No. 1 to show even prima facie to us that Petitioner No. 2 is major, aged about 20 years, as per his claim. His case that the first information report has been lodged mala fide by Respondent No. 3 in the absence of any cogent material before us cannot be ac cepted.

4. Surprisingly none of the petitioners have come to support the statement made in the writ petition by their own affidavit. The affidavit attached with the writ petition has been sworn by Ajai Pal Singh who claims him to be Pairokar and that the statements made in paragraphs 4 and 5 to the effect that the Petitioner No. 2 is major, aged about 20 years, are based on his personal knowledge and not on the basis of the statement made by the Petitioner No. 2. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it has also not been dis closed as to where Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 married themselves.

5. For the reasons aforementioned we dismiss this writ petition. This order, however, will not preclude the Petitioner No. 2 in appearing before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned to make a statement before him in support of her alleged claim that she had attained majority either before or at the time of her alleged marriage on 21 -3-1999.

6. The office to hand over a copy of this order to Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A. G. A. within one week for its intimation to the authority concerned.

Petition dismissed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document