Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJAI LAMBA, RAJEEV SINGH, JJ.
Shivani Verma And Another – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others – Respondents
Misc. Bench No. 23463 of 2017
Decided on : 25-02-2019
For the Petitioner: Mohammad Imran, Adv.
For the Respondent: Bhagwati Prasad Nigam
The independence of the investigating officer and the limited role of the prosecution department in influencing the investigation were central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Certiorari - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366 - Juvenile Justice Act - Code of Criminal Procedure - Chapter XII - Regulation 107 - Investigating Officer's Independence
Fact of the Case:
The petition seeks to quash the FIR registered under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim, petitioner no. 1, claims to have married petitioner no. 2 out of her own free will and asserts that she is above 18 years of age. The investigating officer concluded that the victim was a minor based on the transfer certificate, despite the victim's assertion of her age and marital consent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigating officer and the Joint Director Prosecution took a technical view of the matter, ignoring the victim's statements and the substance of the case. The court emphasized the independence of the investigating officer and directed the Superintendent of Police to ensure compliance with the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the determination of the victim's age, the role of the investigating officer, and the influence of the prosecution department on the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the independence of the investigating officer and held that the prosecution department should not influence the investigation. It also highlighted the importance of considering the substance of the case and the victim's statements.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of as infructuous, as the charge sheet was cancelled and a final report was to be filed. The court directed the law enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with the law as laid down by the Supreme Court.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 0501 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State, Shri S.P. Singh. We have gone through the contents of the impugned First Information Report.
3. Order dated 20th February, 2019 reads as under.
“1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 0501 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State, Shri S.P. Singh.
We have gone through the contents of the impugned First Information Report.
3. Order dated 22nd September, 2017 notices the gist of the issue raised by the petitioners. The order reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri U.K. Tiwary, learned Brief Holder for the State respondents.
We have been taken through the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and the material on record.
Learned A.G.A. may file counter affidavit within a month. Petitioners will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
Issue notice to the respondent no. 4 returnable within six weeks.
List on the date mentioned in the notice.
Smt. Shivani Verma (petitioner no.1) and Ajay (petitioner no.2) are present before the Court duly identified by their counsel. Smt. Shivani Verma has stated that she has married petitioner no.2 out of her own free will and is living with him happily without any coercion or influence. It is further stated that she is major.
Till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, the arrest of the petitioners namely, Shivani Verma and Ajay, who are wanted in Case Crime No. 0501 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi shall remain stayed of course subject to the restraint that the petitioners shall fully cooperate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.?
4. We have taken judicial notice of the fact that victim of offence is petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 1 claims by virtue of this petition before this Court that she and petitioner no. 2 were in love. Petitioner no. 1 left her parental house on 28th July, 2017 of her free will. It has further been asserted by petitioner no. 1/victim/prosecutrix that her correct date of birth is 1st January, 1999. Being above the age of 18 years, she has a right to get married as per her wish. Consequently, petitioner no. 1 got married to petitioner no. 2 on 8th September, 2017. Photographs of marriage have been appended as Annexure 2.
5. In para 12 of the petition, it has been stated that the informant has given wrong age of petitioner no. 1 as 17 years, in the impugned First Information Report.
6. Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Prosecuting Agency in Court which is taken on record. The affidavit has been filed along with statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
We have referred to the statement of the prosecutrix/petitioner no. 1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in extenso. The petitioner as the prosecutrix has stated that she is High School pass. In the testimonials, her date of birth has been recorded as 10th May, 2001, which is the correct date of birth. Petitioner no. 2, Ajay lives in the neighbourhood. The prosecutrix has been in love with Ajay since the last about 1 and 1/2 year and has had physical relations with him.
It has been stated that on 28th July, 2017, Ajay took her to Haridwar and they lived in Jwalapur in rented premises. They lived in Haridwar for two months as husband and wife. They had physical relations. Thereafter they came to Lucknow on 8th September, 20
