Court No. - 25 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 399 of 2010 Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar, S/O- Sri Surendra Kumar, Respondent :- State Of U.P., Thru.Prin. Secy.Home & Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.K.Tripathi,Shiv Kr. Gupta Respondent Counsel :- G.A. Hon'ble Abdul Mateen,J.
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government
Advocate.
Under challenge in this writ petition is FIR relating to crime no. 908 of 2009
under Section 366 IPC of P.S. Naka Hindola, district Lucknow.
We have gone through the contents of the FIR lodged by opposite party no. 4
wherein allegations have been made that the daughter of opposite party no. 4
has been lured away by the petitioner.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner Jitendra
Kumar has married prosecutrix Suman. It is further submitted that as per the
School Leaving Certificate of prosecutrix Suman, her date of birth is
02.11.1991, as such she is major. and in view of the law laid down by the
apex Court in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
reported in (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 478 the prosecutrix and the
petitioner, being major, had every right to marry a person of their choice as
such, they have entered into marriage and the present FIR is a sham and is
liable to be quashed.
We find substance in what has been argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Issue notice to opposite party No. 4 returnable at an early date.
The opposite parties may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Two weeks
thereafter are allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit, if any.
List after expiry of said period.
Till the next date of listing, or till filing of report under Section 169/173
Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, the petitioner shall not be arrested in the above
mentioned case crime number. Investigation shall go on and the petitioner
shall cooperate with the same.
Order Date :- 19.1.2010
anb