BOBBY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitioners arraigned as accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. in case crime No.321 of 2001 P.S. Sirsaganj District Firozabad have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the FIR and restraining the police to arrest them in the aforesaid case. Briefly stated the prosecution case as borne out from the FIR, copy whereof at annexure-5, is that on 12/11/2001 Km.Sangeeta aged about 14 years daughter of Sanjeev Kumar, the informant had been to market during day hours but did not return. A search was made in course of which two persons namely, Sunil and Shivkant disclosed that they had seen Sangeeta going with the present petitioners. The informant made a written complaint to the police on the basis of which the aforesaid case has been registered under Sections 363 and 266 I.P.C.

(2.) The case of the petitioners as stated in the writ petition is that the informant, father of Sangeeta was tenant under their father and both the families had cordial relationship. Both Javed Khan and Sangeeta were intensely lovelorn which drove them to a marriage. According to the petitioner, the marriage was performed on 15/11/2001 and 'Nikahnama' was executed accordingly. Besides, on the legal advice both of them entered into a written agreement admitting marriage and this agreement was preceded by a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Etah who upon exami-nation certified. Sangeeta to be aged about 19 years.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urged that in view of the background facts as narrated in the writ petition that Sangeeta is a major girl being ages 19 years as opined by the Doctor and she having married to petitioner No. 1 on her free will, investigation taken up by the local police purusuan to the FIR lodged by her father should be brought to a halt and the whole criminal proceedings should be quashed. Per contra, learned A.G.A submitted that it is too early to accept the defence plea that Sangeeta is major and that she left the parental home and married to petitioner No.1 on her own volition. He further contended that medical certificate produced by petitioner No.1 in support of age of Sangeeta cannot be accepted on its face value when the investigation is in embryo.