ROHIT KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notices on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR relating to Case Crime No. 243 of 2009, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, police station Thakurganj, district Lucknow. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had married Kumari Insha Siddiqui on 16.01.2008 vide Annexure-3 to the petition and the impugned FIR is an outcome of vengeance since the girl being major had married the petitioner. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per high school certificate annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition Insha Siddiqui is major and has got every right to marry a person of her own choice and, as such, she married the petitioner. It has been submitted that co-accused of the said crime number, namely, Smt. Manju Kapoor, Anil Kapoor and Ritesh Kapoor, had preferred Writ Petition No. 4333 (M/B) of 2009 and this Court while entertaining the same had stayed their arrest. Admit. Issue notice to respondent no. 3, returnable at an early date. Let counter affidavit be filed by the respective respondents within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within next two weeks. List after expiry of the said period. Till further orders of this Court, the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid crime number.