High Court

Petitioner :- Smt Beetu Verma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing the legal validity of First Information Report dated 22.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No.634 of 2024 under Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 (in short B.N.S. 2023), Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur.

3. The impugned FIR alleges that on 21.12.2024, at about 9:30 AM, the petitioner No.1 - Beetu Verma, the daughter of the first informant, left home to attend Arya Mahila Degree College but failed to return. Upon investigation, the informant discovered that Beetu had withdrawn Rs.20,000/- from her savings account at the HDFC Bank ATM under the pressure of an unknown individual. Additionally, both her mobile numbers were switched off, and the informant expressed concern for her safety, suspecting that Beetu had been enticed away by an unknown person or persons.

4. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the impungned FIR contending that the allegations against them are false and baseless. The petitioners' counsel argues that the petitioner No.1 - Beetu Verma, the informant’s daughter, is a major and had left her parental home of her own free will, without any coercion or abduction. She later married petitioner no.2, with whom she had fallen in love. The petitioners assert that Beetu’s marriage was solemnized on 30.12.2024 in Delhi according to her wish, and there was no objection or pressure involved in the decision. The petitioners further claim that the informant (father of Beetu) was opposed to the marriage, and had made attempts to prevent it. Petitioner no.1, who is about 21 years old as according to her High School certificate, her date of birth is 04.01.2004, and petitioner no. 2, who is also of similar age, are both major and entitled to marry according to their own choice. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the FIR and the accusations made in it are groundless, emphasizing that no offence under Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.) 2023 applies to them. The petitioners also stress that petitioner no.2 has no criminal history. However, they claim that the local police is trying to harass them, and there is a significant threat to their safety, particularly if the custody of petitioner no. 1 is handed over to her family, who are against her marriage. The petitioners argue that arresting them would cause irreparable harm to their lives, and they are only left with the option of seeking relief from this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 (now Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita), 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 (now Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita) 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 intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC (now Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita), the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC (now Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita).

6. Reliance has also been placed on a judgement and order dated 5.12.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17046 of 2022 (Smt. Juli Kumari and another vs. State of UP and 2 others), wherein under identical circumstances, the petition was allowed and FIR therein was quashed. For ready reference the order dated 5.12.2022 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 intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC. As regards the age of the victim girl, as indicated in the Aadhar Card appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, no dispute has been raised by learned AGA. It is, thus, clear that both the petitioners are major. The fact that the present writ petition has been filed with the declaration by the victim girl and that she is living voluntarily in the company of the petitioner no.2, is supported with the signature of the victim girl on the Vakalatnama. Once the age of the victim girl is not in dispute, the petitioners no.1 & 2 cannot be made accused for committing offence under Section 366 IPC as victim had left her home in order to live with the petitioner no.2. We make it clear that the question in the present petition is not about the validity of marriage of two individuals i.e. petitioners no.1 & 2. Rather, the issue is about the life and liberty of two individuals in choosing a partner or their right to freedom of choice as to with whom they would like to live. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that from the first information report no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out, inasmuch as, both the petitioners are major and the petitioner no.1 has come up with the categorical stand that she had left her home with the petitioner no.2 willingly and is living with him as a married woman. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The FIR dated 25.10.2022 being Case Crime No.0475 of 2022 under Section 366 IPC, P.S. Saurikh, Distt. Kannauj as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. We, however, clarify that while deciding the present petition, we have not looked into the validity of marriage of the petitioners."

7. Learned A.G.A., on the instructions, states that till date the police report has not been submitted in the present matter. He has submitted that once the first petitioner, who is major, has herself admitted that she has already solemnized marriage with the petitioner No.2, he has no objection, if the matter is decided on merit.

8. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that once the age of the first petitioner is not in dispute and she herself states that she has married with the petitioner No.2 out of her own free will, then the second petitioner cannot be made accused for committing offence under Section 87 of the B.N.S. 2023 as victim had left her home in order to live with the petitioner No.2.

9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that from the first information report no offence under Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita is made out, inasmuch as the first petitioner has come up with the categorical stand that she had left her home with the petitioner No.2 willingly and is living with him as a married woman.

10. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Consequently, the First Information Report dated 22.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No.634 of 2024 under Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.) 2023, Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

11. We further clarify that the observations made qua the marriage is only for disposal of instant matter and would have no bearing qua their respective rights and the same is to be pressed before the competent court/ authority. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 NLY

Petitioner :- Smt Beetu Verma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing the legal validity of First Information Report dated 22.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No.634 of 2024 under Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 (in short B.N.S. 2023), Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur.

3. The impugned FIR alleges that on 21.12.2024, at about 9:30 AM, the petitioner No.1 - Beetu Verma, the daughter of the first informant, left home to attend Arya Mahila Degree College but failed to return. Upon investigation, the informant discovered that Beetu had withdrawn Rs.20,000/- from her savings account at the HDFC Bank ATM under the pressure of an unknown individual. Additionally, both her mobile numbers were switched off, and the informant expressed concern for her safety, suspecting that Beetu had been enticed away by an unknown person or persons.

4. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the impungned FIR contending that the allegations against them are false and baseless. The petitioners' counsel argues that the petitioner No.1 - Beetu Verma, the informant’s daughter, is a major and had left her parental home of her own free will, without any coercion or abduction. She later married petitioner no.2, with whom she had fallen in love. The petitioners assert that Beetu’s marriage was solemnized on 30.12.2024 in Delhi according to her wish, and there was no objection or pressure involved in the decision. The petitioners further claim that the informant (father of Beetu) was opposed to the marriage, and had made attempts to prevent it. Petitioner no.1, who is about 21 years old as according to her High School certificate, her date of birth is 04.01.2004, and petitioner no. 2, who is also of similar age, are both major and entitled to marry according to their own choice. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the FIR and the accusations made in it are groundless, emphasizing that no offence under Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.) 2023 applies to them. The petitioners also stress that petitioner no.2 has no criminal history. However, they claim that the local police is trying to harass them, and there is a significant threat to their safety, particularly if the custody of petitioner no. 1 is handed over to her family, who are against her marriage. The petitioners argue that arresting them would cause irreparable harm to their lives, and they are only left with the option of seeking relief from this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 (now Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita), 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 (now Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita) 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 intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC (now Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita), the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC (now Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita).

6. Reliance has also been placed on a judgement and order dated 5.12.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17046 of 2022 (Smt. Juli Kumari and another vs. State of UP and 2 others), wherein under identical circumstances, the petition was allowed and FIR therein was quashed. For ready reference the order dated 5.12.2022 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 intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC. As regards the age of the victim girl, as indicated in the Aadhar Card appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, no dispute has been raised by learned AGA. It is, thus, clear that both the petitioners are major. The fact that the present writ petition has been filed with the declaration by the victim girl and that she is living voluntarily in the company of the petitioner no.2, is supported with the signature of the victim girl on the Vakalatnama. Once the age of the victim girl is not in dispute, the petitioners no.1 & 2 cannot be made accused for committing offence under Section 366 IPC as victim had left her home in order to live with the petitioner no.2. We make it clear that the question in the present petition is not about the validity of marriage of two individuals i.e. petitioners no.1 & 2. Rather, the issue is about the life and liberty of two individuals in choosing a partner or their right to freedom of choice as to with whom they would like to live. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that from the first information report no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out, inasmuch as, both the petitioners are major and the petitioner no.1 has come up with the categorical stand that she had left her home with the petitioner no.2 willingly and is living with him as a married woman. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The FIR dated 25.10.2022 being Case Crime No.0475 of 2022 under Section 366 IPC, P.S. Saurikh, Distt. Kannauj as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. We, however, clarify that while deciding the present petition, we have not looked into the validity of marriage of the petitioners."

7. Learned A.G.A., on the instructions, states that till date the police report has not been submitted in the present matter. He has submitted that once the first petitioner, who is major, has herself admitted that she has already solemnized marriage with the petitioner No.2, he has no objection, if the matter is decided on merit.

8. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that once the age of the first petitioner is not in dispute and she herself states that she has married with the petitioner No.2 out of her own free will, then the second petitioner cannot be made accused for committing offence under Section 87 of the B.N.S. 2023 as victim had left her home in order to live with the petitioner No.2.

9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that from the first information report no offence under Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita is made out, inasmuch as the first petitioner has come up with the categorical stand that she had left her home with the petitioner No.2 willingly and is living with him as a married woman.

10. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Consequently, the First Information Report dated 22.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No.634 of 2024 under Section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.) 2023, Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

11. We further clarify that the observations made qua the marriage is only for disposal of instant matter and would have no bearing qua their respective rights and the same is to be pressed before the competent court/ authority. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 NLY