High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Prabha Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Rai,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. AND Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 140 of 2025 Applicant :- Manish Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Singh,Parvat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- Smt. Prabha Devi and Manish Mishra with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 26.9.2022 lodged by complainant/respondent no.3 registered as case crime No. 202 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Kamasin, District Banda. With a further prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

2. The writ petition was entertained by the coordinate Bench on 16.2.2023 and the petitioners were accorded interim protection till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Later on, as the charge-sheet was submitted in the instant case and the court concerned had taken cognizance, such situation impelled the petitioners to approach this Court again by means of Application U/s 482 No. 140 of 2025 challenging the charge-sheet No. 01/2024, dated 26.10.2023 along with cognizance order dated 24.01.2024 and summoning order dated 24.01.2024. Learned Single Judge while entertaining the aforesaid application on 20.3.2025, has opined as the proceedings are pending consideration before the Division Bench, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. be heard along with writ petition. Accordingly, by administrative order dated 25.3.2025 passed by Hon'ble Chief Justice, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is placed before us along with instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the informant's daughter was marriageable age at the time of marriage. Later on they have also applied for registration of their marriage on 20.2.2025. The same is also brought on record as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit sworn by Prabha Mishra (wife of second petitioner).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 B.N.S.), 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.

5. 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."

6. Learned A.G.A., on the instructions, states that once the victim, who is major, has herself admitted that she has already solemnized marriage, he has no objection, if the matter is decided on merits.

7. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that earlier the informant had lodged FIR dated 14.4.2021, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0045 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366 IPC. In the said proceeding, the second petitioner was enlarged on bail by learned Single Judge in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33966 of 2021 vide order dated 21.9.2021. Later on informant's daughter again joined the second petitioner when she attained the age of majority. Once the age of the victim is not in dispute and she herself left her home in order to live with the second petitioner out of her own free will, then the petitioner no. 2 cannot be made accused for committing offences as alleged.

8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that from the first information report no offences are made out as alleged, inasmuch as the victim 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.

9. In view of the above, both the writ petition as well as application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed. Consequently, the First Information Report dated 26.9.2022 as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 4.4.2025 A.K.Srivastava ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Smt. Prabha Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Rai,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. AND Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 140 of 2025 Applicant :- Manish Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Singh,Parvat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- Smt. Prabha Devi and Manish Mishra with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 26.9.2022 lodged by complainant/respondent no.3 registered as case crime No. 202 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Kamasin, District Banda. With a further prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

2. The writ petition was entertained by the coordinate Bench on 16.2.2023 and the petitioners were accorded interim protection till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Later on, as the charge-sheet was submitted in the instant case and the court concerned had taken cognizance, such situation impelled the petitioners to approach this Court again by means of Application U/s 482 No. 140 of 2025 challenging the charge-sheet No. 01/2024, dated 26.10.2023 along with cognizance order dated 24.01.2024 and summoning order dated 24.01.2024. Learned Single Judge while entertaining the aforesaid application on 20.3.2025, has opined as the proceedings are pending consideration before the Division Bench, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. be heard along with writ petition. Accordingly, by administrative order dated 25.3.2025 passed by Hon'ble Chief Justice, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is placed before us along with instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the informant's daughter was marriageable age at the time of marriage. Later on they have also applied for registration of their marriage on 20.2.2025. The same is also brought on record as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit sworn by Prabha Mishra (wife of second petitioner).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 B.N.S.), 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.

5. 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."

6. Learned A.G.A., on the instructions, states that once the victim, who is major, has herself admitted that she has already solemnized marriage, he has no objection, if the matter is decided on merits.

7. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that earlier the informant had lodged FIR dated 14.4.2021, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0045 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366 IPC. In the said proceeding, the second petitioner was enlarged on bail by learned Single Judge in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33966 of 2021 vide order dated 21.9.2021. Later on informant's daughter again joined the second petitioner when she attained the age of majority. Once the age of the victim is not in dispute and she herself left her home in order to live with the second petitioner out of her own free will, then the petitioner no. 2 cannot be made accused for committing offences as alleged.

8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that from the first information report no offences are made out as alleged, inasmuch as the victim 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.

9. In view of the above, both the writ petition as well as application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed. Consequently, the First Information Report dated 26.9.2022 as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 4.4.2025 A.K.Srivastava ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad