Durgesh And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Petitioner no.1 has come before this Court contending that she is major and she has left her father's home without any false allurement of petitioner no2. After leaving the paternal house, petitioner no.1 along with petitioner no.2 the original accused entered into wed-lock on 18.11.2020 in Arya Samaj Temple, Greator NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar. According to the prosecuterix namely petitioner no.1 now she is more than 19 years as per the Adhar Card. According to the Adhar Card, her date of birth is 01.01.2001. Petitioner no.2 is 22 years of age. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 applied for getting their marriage registered by online registration application dated 27.11.2020. The police started harassing the petitioners and wanted petitioner no.2 to be arrested because of the complaint lodged by respondent no.4 herein. Petitioner nos. 2 to 6are family members relative of petitioner no.2 (main accused).

On 5.1.2021, we had directed the petitioners to remain present and on 5th and 18th January, 2021, they could not remain present. The matter has been listed before us today.

We propose to dispose of this petition today as the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the petitioners are present before this Court and the learned Counsel for the State is also present before this Court.

The factual data goes to show that the petitioners have married each other which is averred and supported by documentary evidence produced before this Court. The complaint is by the father of petitioner no.1. The investigation is going on on the basis of the F.I.R. dated 9.11.2020 lodged by respondent no.4 - father of petitioner no.1.

Prayers prayed for which is prayer no. (ii) is as follows:-

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the First Information Report dated 9.11.2020 in Case Crime No.814 of 2020, under Sections 366,352,504,506 and 120B of I.P.C. at Police Station - Tajganj, District - Agra.

which can be granted at this stage looking to the factual data but we are constraint not to quash the F.I.R. at this stage as the respondent no.4 is not before us. The documents produced may require certain further scrutiny. The Police will get the statement of petitioner no.1 recorded before a Magistrate within 4 weeks from today.

The husband before us is also arrayed as petitioner no.2 requesting this Court to quash the F.I.R. lodged and numbered as Case Crime No.814 of 2020, under Sections 366,352,504,506 and 120B of I.P.C. The petitioner nos. 3,4,5 and 6 have not been summoned by us.

The police after getting the statement recorded of the girl i.e. petitioner no.1 namely the prosecuterix who is alleged to have been subjected to ill treatment by petitioner nos. 2 to 6 as alleged by the father of the prosecuterix alleging commission of offence under Sections 366,352,504,506 and 120B of I.P.C. If the police comes to a definite conclusion that she has married petitioner no.2 and that she has no grievance against the petitioners, they may file appropriate report before the concerned Magistrate.

On the report being filed or filing of chargesheet, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all objections. The Court will take action as per law.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently submitted that the age is not certain of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 is infact prosecuterix and she should not have joined the other petitioners before this Court. The report is filed by the father about the ill treatment to her.

We are prima facie satisfied that F.I.R. lodged by respondent no.4 requires further certain investigation at this stage and, therefore, though satisfied that we would have quashed the F.I.R. but we leave it to the police authority at the end of the investigation to take a final decision.

Till the final decision is taken, none of the petitioners shall be dealt with coercively. If the police feels that chargesheet has to be submitted, the petitioners would be given 4 weeks' time for taking appropriate remedy. Till then, they shall not be dealt with coercively. We are showing indulgence as prima facie it appears that the girl has married the boy who is alleged to have falsely allured her. The arrest of petitioner nos. 2 to 6 will have adverse impact on the marital ties of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 hence this indulgence is necessary under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.

We are thankful to Ms. Anita Singh, Advocate, Sri N.K. Srivastava and Ms. Alpana Singh, learned A.G.A., as well as petitioner nos.1 and 2, who are present in the Chamber for taking up the matter.