IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, JJ.
Smt. Ujala and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12522 of 2024
Decided On : 23-08-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363 and 366 - Writ petition for quashing FIR - Petitioners claimed that victim left home willingly and married petitioner no.2 - Court found no offence under Section 366 IPC as both petitioners are major and victim's consent was established - FIR quashed. (Paras 8 and 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Court deprecated practice of annexing victim statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by accused-petitioners, emphasizing that such statements should not be disclosed until cognizance is taken. (Paras 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, asserting that the victim left her home willingly and was living with petitioner no.2 as a married woman.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that no offence under Section 366 IPC was made out, as both petitioners were major and the victim had left her home voluntarily.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR under Section 366 IPC was valid given the victim's age and consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere abduction does not constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC without proof of intent to compel or seduce the victim.
Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the FIR was quashed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Supplementary affidavit as well as compliance affidavit filed today are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Vidya Sagar Rajbhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State respondents and perused the record.
3. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 27.6.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 0211 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Bardah, District Azamgarh and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
4. Pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 24.7.2024 and 08.8.2024, learned A.G.A. has filed compliance affidavit annexing therewith copy of the statement of the victim/petitioner no.1 herein recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and the case diary showing the ossification test report.
5. According to the statement of victim/petitioner no.1 herein recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has not supported the prosecution version and has categorically stated that she left her home willingly with Arvind, petitioner no.2 herein and they have married each other as well and there was consented physical relationship. As per the ossification test report, the victim is aged above 18 years and below 22 years.
6. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners 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.
7. 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 :
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
Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in AIR 2018 SC 2099
The court ruled that no offence under Section 366 IPC was made out as both petitioners were major and the victim left her home willingly.
The court established that in the absence of reliable age documentation, ossification tests can be utilized to determine the age of individuals in cases involving alleged abduction or elopement, part....
Victim's consent negates charges of kidnapping under IPC, emphasizing equity over technicality in legal proceedings.
The prosecution successfully proved the charges against the accused, and the revision petition was dismissed.
The court dismissed the petition to quash kidnapping proceedings due to the victim not attaining marriageable age and the lack of informant's affidavit supporting the marriage.
Point of law: Quash of FIR - Dowry Death – Court is not hundred percent sure as what is the role genesis from each of the accused and therefore, court is restraining ourselves from entertaining this ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.