JUDGMENT :

Surendra Singh-I, J.

Heard Sri Udayveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Sacchan, learned State Law Officer appearing for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 04.05.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 214 of 2023, under Section 366 I.P.C., P.S.-Rath, District-Hamirpur, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Junior High School Marksheet, the date of birth of petitioner no. 1, Smt. Malti Devi is 10.07.2001 and as per the Aadhar card and PAN Card, the date of birth of petitioner no. 2, Rajkumar is 01.01.1992 and as such, the petitioners no. 1 and 2 are major and they have married on their sweet will, therefore, no offence has been committed. By drawing attention to Annexure-4 to the petition, it is submitted that online application for registration of marriage has also been submitted. The present petition is also supported by a joint affidavit of the petitioners nos. 1 and 2. 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.

4. 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 inter