A.F.R.

Court No. - 45

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3701 of 2023

Petitioner :- Smt. Neetu And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mithilesh Kumar Shukla

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri

Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Sri G.P. Singh,

learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the

impugned first information report dated 17.02.2023 registered as Case Crime

No. 77 of 2023 under Sections 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Rasulpur, District-

Firozabad and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest or harass the

petitioner no. 2, Suraj in pursuance of the impugned first information report.

3. According to prosecution case, informant Shyam Sundar's wife, Neetu, is the

resident of Tea-Huts No. 2296, Sonia Camp, G.T. Road, Jhilmil Industrial Area,

near Dilshan Garden, Metro Station, Shahdara, Old Delhi. On 12.02.2023 at

1.30 p.m., informant's younger brother dropped Neetu along with her two sons,

namely, Sangam, aged 8 years and Sushank, aged 6 years on bus at Asafabad

Chauraha for Agra. Since then, the whereabouts of Neetu is not known. The

informant's wife, Neetu was in love affair for a long duration with petitioner no.

2, Suraj, resident of Shahdara, old Delhi, who was posted as House Keeping

Supervisor at Dilshad Garden, Metro Station. His wife often used to have

conversation with Suraj on her mobile. The informant had earlier also found

Neetu in the house of accused Suraj but he had brought Neetu back to his home.

On the written statement of the informant, the first information report was

lodged against petitioner no. 2, Suraj.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the first

information report has been lodged after a delay of about 5 days without any

explanation which is clearly an afterthought and consultation with apparently

false allegations. It has been next submitted that petitioner no. 2, Neetu has filed

an affidavit supporting the petitioners case that her husband, Shyam Sundar and

her in-laws used to harass and torture her. She came to her parental home but her

parents could not give her any help. It is also submitted that under compelling

circumstances, petitioner no. 1, Smt. Neetu has taken shelter with the petitioner

no. 2, Suraj with her free consent. Petitioner no. 2, Suraj has not abducted

petitioner no. 1, Smt. Neetu by forceful compulsion or inducement to leave her

matrimonial home to marry her against her will or for illicit intercourse, thus, no

offence u/s 366 I.P.C. is made out.

5. Petitioner no.1, Smt. Neetu has also deposed in her affidavit that on

10.12.2021, she was ousted from the house of her in-laws. Thereafter, she

started living with her two children in a rented house at Partapur, District-

Meerut. Later on, informant came there to the house of petitioner no. 1, Smt.

Neetu and after seeking excuse, started living with her at Partapur in a rented

house but due to dispute, informant came back to his native place, leaving

petitioner no. 1, Smt. Neetu and her two children alone at Partapur, Meerut.

Petitioner no. 1, Smt. Neetu has also deposed that Smt. Dolly, wife of petitioner

no. 2 has close friendly relation with her since her school period and as such

only with a view to provide her shelter, wife of petitioner no. 2 permitted

petitioner no. 1, Smt. Neetu to live at the house of petitioner no. 2, Suraj since

first week of January, 2023. The petitioner no. 2, Suraj has no concern with the

alleged offence.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. representing the State has opposed the petition and

submitted that petitioner no. 1, Smt. Neetu and petitioner no. 2, Suraj, both are

married, having two children each. Petitioner no.