Lucknow, State v. Yusuf, Pending in the Court of Additional District Judge

learned counsel for the private opposite party No. 2/ victim & opposite party No.3/ father of victim/ complainant and gone through the record.

3. The present application has been filed by the applicants for the following main relief:- "To quash the impugned charge sheet No.01/2017 dated 03.09.2018 and Summoning Order dated 17.01.2019, in S.T. No. 120/2019, Crime No.444/2017, U/s. 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Gudamba, District: Lucknow on the basis of Sulahnama made between the parties on 19.11.2024, against the Petitioner and also to quash the entire proceedings arising out of S.T. No. 120/2019, Crime No.444/2017, U/s. 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Gudamba, District : Lucknow, State Vs. Yusuf, Pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-1st, Lucknow, on the basis of Sulahnama dated 19.11.2024 made between the parties against the Petitioner."

4. Applicant/ Mohd. Yusuf and opposite party No.2/ victim are present before this Court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsel.

5. It is stated that the opposite party No.3 being annoyed with the relationship of applicant and opposite party No.2/ victim, who on her own volition, left her parental house in the evening of 15.08.2017, lodged an FIR on 18.08.2017 at Police Station- Gudamba, District- Lucknow, registered as Case Crime no.0444 of 2017 alleging therein that applicant enticed away her minor daughter aged about 17 years in the evening of 15.08.2017 and in view of the allegations levelled in the FIR, the same was lodged under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.

6. It is also stated that in fact applicant and opposite party No.2 were having affair and the opposite party No.3 and other family members were opposing this relationship and the opposite party No.2 was inclined to marry the applicant and therefore, she on her own volition left her parental house and after being recovered, she under pressure of opposite party No.3 and other family members levelled allegations against the applicant as would appear from the copy of the statement(s) on record recorded during investigation in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. annexed as Annexure No.7 at page No.59 to 63 of the present paper book.

7. It is further stated that the fact that victim under pressure of complainant/ opposite party No.3 and other family members levelled allegations against the applicant during investigation can be deduced from the fact that the opposite party No.2/ victim along with applicant filed a writ petition bearing Misc. Bench No.21120 of 2017 (Smt. Sabnam and Another Vs. State of U.P. and others) challenging the FIR in issue dated 18.08.2017, which is basis of the pending criminal proceedings, before this Court and this Court taking note of the age of the opposite party No.2/ victim indicated by the prosecution as also the fact that at that point of time, the statement(s) of the opposite party No.2/ victim was not recorded in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C., disposed of the said writ petition finally protecting the rights of the parties. The order dated 08.09.2017 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned FIR dated 18.08.2017 registered as case crime no.444 of 2017 filed under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow and further prayer is to direct the respondents, concerned, not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are major aged about 18 years and 24 years respectively as per Aadhar Card. There was love affair between the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 16.08.2017 according to Muslim Rites and Custom, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. He next argued that the petitioner no.1 had voluntarily left her parental home and entered into matrimonial alliance with petitioner no.2 and that she was major, it cannot be said that any cognizable offence against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 is made out, hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are major and they have voluntarily married. Hence, in view of the facts the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. Learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that since prima facie commission of offence is disclosed, hence the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature of allegation at this stage it is not a fit case for quashing of the First Information Report. However, in the interest of justice considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner no.1 Smt. Sabnam is major and she married on her own sweet-will then no offence against the petitioner no.2 is made out. Since as per prosecution case the petitioner no.1 is minor hence if she is produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within three weeks from today, then the Magistrate concerned will get her age verified from the record and if found necessary, get her medical report from C.M.O., whether she is major or minor. If she is found major her statement will be recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. After perusal of the statement the Investigating Officer will submit the police report. If there is apprehension of any threat from side of the informant or his men, the petitioners will approach the S.S.P./S.P. concerned to provide protection to them to appear before the Magistrate concerned to record the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C., he/she will consider the same to ensure the security and safety of the petitioners. In view of the above, till any order is passed by the Magistrate, concerned, or till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. whichever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. With the above observation this petition is finally disposed of."

8. It is further stated that the writ petition was filed on the basis of the fact that marriage of the applicant and opposite party No.2 was solemnised on 16.08.2017 according to Muslim Rites and Customs/ rituals and at the time of said marriage, the victim was aged about 18 years.

9. It is next stated that according to the medical opinion, the victim at relevant point of time was aged about 18 years and taking note of the facts of the case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including passed in the case(s) of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397, shall be extended in favour of the applicant and the opposite party no.2/ victim both.

10. It is also stated that out of wedlock of applicant and opposite party No.2/ victim, there are two children namely, Mohd Saad aged about five years and Adeeba aged about six months and this fact is evident from Annexure Nos. SCA-1 and SCA-2.

11. It is further stated that before the trial Court, the complainant/ opposite party No.3 appeared. He was examined and also cross- examined and the perusal of the statement(s) of the complainant/ opposite party No.3, which is on record as Annexure No.9 would show that based upon the same, the judgment of conviction could not be passed.

12. It is also stated that in the light of the facts of the case including the fact that victim/ opposite party No.2 at relevant point of time was 18 years of age, the present application be allowed and proceedings in issue be quashed else the entire matrimonial life of applicant and victim/opposite party No. 2 as also future of their minors would be ruined.

13. The victim/ opposite party No. 2 present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune.

14. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra), Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Suhana (supra) as also in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 as also taking note of the nature of dispute/crime and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of opposite party no. 2/ victim and the applicant as also the future of their minors would be ruined and further that in the given facts of the case chances of conviction are extremely bleak, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.444/2017, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

15. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 28.1.2025 G. Singh/ Anand ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

learned counsel for the private opposite party No. 2/ victim & opposite party No.3/ father of victim/ complainant and gone through the record.

3. The present application has been filed by the applicants for the following main relief:- "To quash the impugned charge sheet No.01/2017 dated 03.09.2018 and Summoning Order dated 17.01.2019, in S.T. No. 120/2019, Crime No.444/2017, U/s. 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Gudamba, District: Lucknow on the basis of Sulahnama made between the parties on 19.11.2024, against the Petitioner and also to quash the entire proceedings arising out of S.T. No. 120/2019, Crime No.444/2017, U/s. 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Gudamba, District : Lucknow, State Vs. Yusuf, Pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-1st, Lucknow, on the basis of Sulahnama dated 19.11.2024 made between the parties against the Petitioner."

4. Applicant/ Mohd. Yusuf and opposite party No.2/ victim are present before this Court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsel.

5. It is stated that the opposite party No.3 being annoyed with the relationship of applicant and opposite party No.2/ victim, who on her own volition, left her parental house in the evening of 15.08.2017, lodged an FIR on 18.08.2017 at Police Station- Gudamba, District- Lucknow, registered as Case Crime no.0444 of 2017 alleging therein that applicant enticed away her minor daughter aged about 17 years in the evening of 15.08.2017 and in view of the allegations levelled in the FIR, the same was lodged under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.

6. It is also stated that in fact applicant and opposite party No.2 were having affair and the opposite party No.3 and other family members were opposing this relationship and the opposite party No.2 was inclined to marry the applicant and therefore, she on her own volition left her parental house and after being recovered, she under pressure of opposite party No.3 and other family members levelled allegations against the applicant as would appear from the copy of the statement(s) on record recorded during investigation in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. annexed as Annexure No.7 at page No.59 to 63 of the present paper book.

7. It is further stated that the fact that victim under pressure of complainant/ opposite party No.3 and other family members levelled allegations against the applicant during investigation can be deduced from the fact that the opposite party No.2/ victim along with applicant filed a writ petition bearing Misc. Bench No.21120 of 2017 (Smt. Sabnam and Another Vs. State of U.P. and others) challenging the FIR in issue dated 18.08.2017, which is basis of the pending criminal proceedings, before this Court and this Court taking note of the age of the opposite party No.2/ victim indicated by the prosecution as also the fact that at that point of time, the statement(s) of the opposite party No.2/ victim was not recorded in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C., disposed of the said writ petition finally protecting the rights of the parties. The order dated 08.09.2017 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned FIR dated 18.08.2017 registered as case crime no.444 of 2017 filed under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow and further prayer is to direct the respondents, concerned, not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are major aged about 18 years and 24 years respectively as per Aadhar Card. There was love affair between the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and they both have performed marriage on 16.08.2017 according to Muslim Rites and Custom, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. He next argued that the petitioner no.1 had voluntarily left her parental home and entered into matrimonial alliance with petitioner no.2 and that she was major, it cannot be said that any cognizable offence against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 is made out, hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are major and they have voluntarily married. Hence, in view of the facts the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. Learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that since prima facie commission of offence is disclosed, hence the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature of allegation at this stage it is not a fit case for quashing of the First Information Report. However, in the interest of justice considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner no.1 Smt. Sabnam is major and she married on her own sweet-will then no offence against the petitioner no.2 is made out. Since as per prosecution case the petitioner no.1 is minor hence if she is produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within three weeks from today, then the Magistrate concerned will get her age verified from the record and if found necessary, get her medical report from C.M.O., whether she is major or minor. If she is found major her statement will be recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. After perusal of the statement the Investigating Officer will submit the police report. If there is apprehension of any threat from side of the informant or his men, the petitioners will approach the S.S.P./S.P. concerned to provide protection to them to appear before the Magistrate concerned to record the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C., he/she will consider the same to ensure the security and safety of the petitioners. In view of the above, till any order is passed by the Magistrate, concerned, or till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. whichever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. With the above observation this petition is finally disposed of."

8. It is further stated that the writ petition was filed on the basis of the fact that marriage of the applicant and opposite party No.2 was solemnised on 16.08.2017 according to Muslim Rites and Customs/ rituals and at the time of said marriage, the victim was aged about 18 years.

9. It is next stated that according to the medical opinion, the victim at relevant point of time was aged about 18 years and taking note of the facts of the case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including passed in the case(s) of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397, shall be extended in favour of the applicant and the opposite party no.2/ victim both.

10. It is also stated that out of wedlock of applicant and opposite party No.2/ victim, there are two children namely, Mohd Saad aged about five years and Adeeba aged about six months and this fact is evident from Annexure Nos. SCA-1 and SCA-2.

11. It is further stated that before the trial Court, the complainant/ opposite party No.3 appeared. He was examined and also cross- examined and the perusal of the statement(s) of the complainant/ opposite party No.3, which is on record as Annexure No.9 would show that based upon the same, the judgment of conviction could not be passed.

12. It is also stated that in the light of the facts of the case including the fact that victim/ opposite party No.2 at relevant point of time was 18 years of age, the present application be allowed and proceedings in issue be quashed else the entire matrimonial life of applicant and victim/opposite party No. 2 as also future of their minors would be ruined.

13. The victim/ opposite party No. 2 present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune.

14. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra), Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Suhana (supra) as also in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 as also taking note of the nature of dispute/crime and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of opposite party no. 2/ victim and the applicant as also the future of their minors would be ruined and further that in the given facts of the case chances of conviction are extremely bleak, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.444/2017, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

15. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 28.1.2025 G. Singh/ Anand ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench