SHANU PAUL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the first information report of Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No. 462 of 2006 dated 11.07.2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 2156 of 2006 under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is the daughter of informant (respondent No. 4). Petitioner states that she is major. Thus, entitle to marry with a man of her choice. She further states that on 0407.2006 she went to Asansol with Ritesh Kumar Roy and married with him out of hr own sweet will. She further states that her father (respondent No. 4) lodged aforesaid first information report with a view to harass her husband Ritesh Kumar Roy, because, her father is against the aforesaid marriage. It is further stated that she is residing with Ritesh Kumar Roy as his wife. Petitioner then stated that as she has not been kidnapped and/or abducted, no offence made out against Ritesh Kumar Roy. Accordingly, she prayed that the first information report lodged by her father against Ritesh Kumar Roy be quashed.

(2.) Sri Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it manifests from the admit card (Annexure-2), issued by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi that date of birth of petitioner is 3rd of August, 1986. He further submits that admittedly first information report was lodged on 11.07.2006, thus on that date petitioner was manor. He further submits that statement of petitioner recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In that statement she categorically stated that she is major and she went to Asansol with Ritesh Kumar Roy and married with him out of her own sweet will. Sri Shailesh submits that in view of the statement of petitioner, no offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. made out, thus, the first information report is liable to be quashed. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. And Another reported in , : (2006) 5 SCC 475.

(3.) Sri Ravi Kerketta, J.C. to G.P.-IV appears on behalf of State and opposed the present application. He submits that till the date of filing of counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 the age of the petitioner was not verified by the Medical Board. Thus, it is not clear whether on the date of occurrence, she is major or not? However, he fairly submits that genuineness of Annexure-2 has not been challenged in the counter affidavit.