JUDGMENT

Shree Prakash Singh, J.

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. Since pure legal question is involved in this matter, therefore the notice to the opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.

3. By means of the instant application, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the impugned order of non-bailable warrant dated 27.09.2022 and impugned order dated 07.12.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, in Criminal Case No. 3095 of 2001, arising out of case crime no. 172 of 2001, under Sections 4 98A, 304B of the IPC and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to Police Station Pisawan, District Sitapur.

4. Factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was minor (thirteen years of age) at the time of alleged incident, as her date of birth has been shown as 20.07.1988. The opposite party no. 2, Sri Ram Chandra lodged the first information report, against the present applicant along with the other co-accused persons. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted and the charge-sheet was filed. After the alleged incident, the applicant performed marriage with one Prakash, resident of Village Malhpur Chaubey and started living at her matrimonial house and, thus, she could not receive the summons and, ultimately, when the non-bailable warrant was issued on 27.09.2022, she came to know about the case and, thereafter, approached her counsel, who filed an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur on 14.10.2022 with a prayer that the matter may be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial, as she was thirteen years of age at the time of the incident. On the said application, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur passed the order on 07.12.2022, whereby, the prayer has been rejected and order of non-bailable warrant was passed and proclamation under Section 82 CrPC was issued against the applicant. Thus the applicant assailed the order dated 27.09.2022 and 07.12.2022 by way of instant application.

5. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that an FIR was lodged by the complainant, Ram Chandra under Section 4 98A, 304B of the IPC and under Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Pisawan, District Sitapur on 04.09.2000 and the present applicant, who was the minor on the date of said incident, has been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive as the age of the applicant on the date of incident was thirteen years, as per her date of birth. He submits that when this fact came into knowledge that first information report was lodged against the present applicant and all the family members, the applicant surrendered her before the court concerned and she was granted bail by the trial court vide order dated 08.02.2001.

6. Further submission is that the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the family members of the applicant in Case Crime No. 172 of 2000 and the investigation against the applicant was kept pending but later on, under the influence of the opposite party no. 2, the charge-sheet was also submitted against the applicant on 24.03.2001 assuming her to be major, although it is apparent from the charge-sheet that the present applicant was about thirteen years of age as is mentioned in the charge-sheet itself.

7. He contended that after filing of the charge-sheet against the applicant, the criminal case was registered as Criminal Case No. 3095 of 2001, ( State v. Chottaki @ Kiran ) but neither any notice nor any summon was ever served upon the applicant and the trial court without ensuring the fact as to whether the summon has been served upon the applicant or not, started issuing non-bailable warrants against the applicant and as soon as the fact with respect to the issuance of non-bailable warrant came into knowledge of the applicant, she moved an application on 14.10.2022 before the Chief Judicial