- (1.) This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing F.I.R./Case Crime No.118 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao ( Annexure No.1).
(2.) Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency in deference to order dated 8.8.2016. Order dated 8.8.2016 reads as under :- "1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Case Crime No.118/2016 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S.Bangarmau, district Unnao (Annexure-1). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that petitioner No.1 willingly got married to petitioner No.2. The marriage has not been accepted by respondent No.4, therefore, the petitioners were being tormented. The petitioners approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.9791(M/B) of 2016 Smt. Basanti and another versus State of U.P. and others to seek protection. Order in that regard has been placed on record as Annexure-3 dated 5.5.2016. 3. It has been pleaded that in abuse of process of the law and process of the Court, impugned proceedings have been initiated. In the course of investigation, petitioner No.1 has been found to be nineteen years as per her medical examination. In the statement given by petitioner No.1 under Section 164 CrPC (Annexure-5), it has been made evident that petitioner No.1 was not kidnapped; rather got married to the accused. 4. It has been pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioners that the case is squarely covered by judgment dated 23.7.2015, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3519(M/B) of 2015 Shaheen Parveen and another versus State of U.P. and others. 5. In Shaheen Parveen's case , the following (relevant portion) has been held : "6. Petitioner no.-2 is accused of committing an offence under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code inheres that whoever kidnaps any person from lawful guardianship shall be punished in terms of sentence provided in the provision. 8. "Kidnapping from lawful guardianship" has been defined under Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. The provision when extracted reads as under:- "Whoever takes or entices any minor under *[sixteen] years of age if a male, or under **[eighteen] years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. Explanation: - The words "lawful guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person. Exception: - This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose." 9. Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code inheres that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with a sentence, as provided in the provision. 10. At the time of considering whether on admitting the allegations made in the F.I.R., offence has been committed or not, the ingredients of the offence are required to be considered, in context of the evidence collected during the course of investigation. 11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Court has minutely examined the facts that have emerged on investigation of the case. 14. The Investigating Agency is concluding that at the point in time when the victim left in the company of the accused, she was a few months less than 18 years, which is the relevant age mentioned in Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, above extracted. Clearly, the Investigating Agency is taking a hypertechnical view of the issue. The other relevant facts and circumstances of the case are being ignored. 15. The issue whether the victim was kidnapped or abducted is required to be examined in context of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 16. If the statement of the prosecutrix, above noted, is taken into account, it becomes evident that ingredients of the offence under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code in regard to coercion, kidnapping or abduction allegedly committed by Sarfaraj, are not satisfied. The provisions of Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code are required to be considered in context of provisions of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. So as to satisfy the ingredients of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, it has to be established by the prosecuting agency that the accused/sarfaraj took or enticed the prosecutrix out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of the prosecutrix, without the consent of the guardian/respondent no. 4. In the case in hand, it is the case of the prosecutrix herself that she of her free will went with Sarfaraj, lived with him, wants to live with him and is expecting his child. Element of coercion and enticement by Sarfaraj is absent, although consent of the guardian had not been taken. 17. The writ court, being a court of equity, must take into consideration all relevant factors brought before it to deliver substantial justice. Equity justifies bending the rules, where fair play is not violated, with a view to promote substantial justice. A writ court cannot contemplate any limitation on its power to deliver substantial justice. It has to be ensured that a consumer of justice gets complete justice, instead of going into the nicety of law. Under the circumstances, the court cannot be a mere onlooker if injustice is likely to be caused. 18. Petitioner No.1 the victim/prosecutrix would be the best witness, rather the only witness of commission of offence under Sections 363/366 I.P.C. Surely, the victim will not support the prosecution case, as has been made evident by her in her statement, recorded in the course of investigation under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and therefore the trial would result in acquittal. During course of trial, considerable number of man hours would be wasted in prosecution/ defending and judging the case. No useful purpose would be served and the entire exercise of trial would be in futility because the victim has declared that she was not victimised or kidnapped. 19. The facts that have emerged from the record make it evident that the impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated because mother of the Prosecutrix/victim ( respondent no.-4) has not accepted the marriage of her daughter with petitioner No.2. 20. In case, despite the evidence that has come on record, as noted above, proceedings are not quashed, petitioner no.-2 would be required to face criminal charges and undergo the agony of a trial. 21. We have also taken into account the fact that in case the petitioner No.2 is allowed to be prosecuted, the matrimonial life of petitioner No.1/the alleged victim would be disrupted. Her husband would be incarcerated and there would be no one to take care of her child, who is yet-to-be-born. 22. If a minor, of her own, abandons the guardianship of her parents and joins a boy without any role having been played by the boy in her abandoning the guardianship of her parents and without her having been subjected to any kind of pressure, inducement, etc and without any offer or promise from the accused, no offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C. will be made out when the girl is aged more than 17 years and is mature enough to understand what she is doing. Of course, if the accused induces or allures the girl and that influences the minor in leaving her guardian's custody and the keeping and going with the accused, then it would be difficult for the Court to accept that minor had voluntarily come to the accused. In case the victim/ prosecutrix willingly, of her own accord, accompanies the boy, the law does not cast a duty on the boy of taking her back to her father's house or even of telling her not to accompany him. 23. A girl who has attained the age of discretion and was on the verge of attaining majority and is capable of knowing what was good and what was bad for her, cannot be said to be a victim of inducement, particularly when the case of the victim/girl herself is that it was on her initiative and on account of her voluntary act that she had gone with the boy and got married to him. In such circumstances, desire of the girl/victim is required to be seen. Ingredients of Section 361 I.P.C. are required to be considered accordingly, and not in mechanical or technical interpretation. 24. Ingredients of Section 361 I.P.C. cannot be said to be satisfied in a case where the minor having attained age of discretion, alleged to have been taken by the accused person, left her guardian's protection knowingly (having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing) and voluntarily joins the accused person. In such a case, it cannot be said that the victim had been taken away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. 25. So as to show an act of criminality on the part of the accused, some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian, is required to be shown. Conclusion might be different in case evidence is collected by the investigating agency to establish that though immediately prior to the minor leaving the guardian's protection, no active part was played by the accused, he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to do so. ( The Court in above regards takes a cue from the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India S. Varadarajan versus State of Madras, 1965 1 SCR 243). 26. When the above noted situation is considered in context of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would become evident that the victim (petitioner No.1) was a few months short of attaining age of 18 years. The said petitioner had attained age of discretion, however, not age of majority. Petitioner No.1, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC has clearly demonstrated that it was she who went of her free will and accord on 10.2.2014 with Mohd. Sarfaraj, without any coercion, and stayed with him, and got married to him willingly. It is a consensual act on the part of petitioner No.1 all through. Such clear stand of the victim makes it evident that Mohd. Sarfaraj respondent No.2 cannot be attributed with coercing petitioner No.1, inducing petitioner No.1 or kidnapping or abducting her in commission of offence, as alleged. Surely, a girl who has attained an age more than 17 years and who is already carrying pregnancy cannot be stated to have not attained age of discretion. In such circumstances, a technicality in law would not be attracted. The Court has not been shown any material which would indicate coercion, inducement or forceful act on the part of Sarfaraj (petitioner No.2) so as to conclude that offence has been committed by him. 27. The writ Court considering totality of fact and circumstances, cannot ignore or disregard the welfare of the petitioners, particularly when the exercise of trial is going to be in futility, as observed hereinabove. 28. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, the Court is convinced that the impugned proceedings have been initiated in abuse of process of the Court and process of the law. A personal grudge against marriage of choice of the daughter is being settled by virtue of initiating impugned criminal proceedings, which would not be permissible in law. Such prosecution would abrogate constitutional right vested in the petitioners to get married as per their discretion, particularly when there is no evidence to indicate that the marriage is void. 30. In view of above, petitioner No.2 cannot be said to have committed offence either under Section 363 I.P.C. read with Section 361 I.P.C. or under Section 366 I.P.C. 31. In the above noted facts and circumstances, we are of the view that ends of justice would be served if the petition is allowed." 6. Issue notice to serve respondent No.4, returnable on 16.9.2016. 7. Learned counsel for the State, in view of the medical evidence and statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC has not been able to dispute that the case would be covered by Shaheen Parveen's case . 8. We direct Superintendent of Police, Unnao to take notice of the facts and circumstances, review the entire investigation conducted till date and if necessary get the matter further investigated in the light of Shaheen Parveen's case and file his affidavit as to under what circumstances, despite no evidence of kidnapping having come on record, the petitioners are proceeded against. 9. Till the next date of listing, petitioners shall not be taken in custody. 10. Further proceedings shall remain stayed, till the next date of listing. 11. List on 16.9.2016."
(3.) In deference to contents of paragraph 8 of the order above extracted, it appears that Superintendent of Police, Unnao directed further investigation as is evident from the order passed by Superintendent of Police, Unnao placed on record as Annexure Nos.SCA-5 appended with the short counter affidavit. It appears that further investigation has been conducted. The relevant evidences have been placed on record. The evidences available on record have been reviewed.;