- (1.) B. K. Roy and D. C. Srivastava, JJ. In this writ petition, the prayer is to quash the first information report dated 15th July, 1996 registered as Crime Case No. 133 of 1996 under Sections 366/383 I. P. C. , Police Station Nakhasa, Sambhal, District Moradabad appending its copy as An-nexure-4.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned first information report show that Respondent No. 4 Smr. Mehmooda, wife of Zahir Akhtar, lodged a written infor mation before the Thanadhyaksh, Police Station Nakhasa alleging, inter alia, to the effect that her son Jamal Akhtar was mar ried about three months earlier with Noor Begum daughter of Sri Iftikhar Hussain resident of Deepa Sarai, that she, her daughter-in-law and her daughter-in- law's sister Gulshan were wearing gold jwelleries weighing about twelve tolas while they were on their way to their relation and reached in front of the house of Tauquir Pehalwan, that lauquir Pehalwan asked his son Akram to lift them on which Akram, Mota, their mother Naseema Begum and sister Muzamil, who were standing on the door, forcibly lifted her daughter-in-law and took her in the house and threatened the inform ant to be killed and asked her to run away; on her creating cries Akram son of Sri Mphd. Ismail, Rizvan son of Sri Zahid Hus sain, and others, arrived and saw the inci dent, that it is being apprehended that her daughter-in-law may be raped or murdered by the accused persons and hence legal ac tion be taken. Petitioner No. 1 is the alleged daughter-in-law of the informant, Petitioner No. 2 is Akram, Petitioner No. 3 is Naseema Begum, Petitioner No. 4 is Muzamil and Nos. 5 is Mota. The writ petition describes petitioner No. 5 as a minor aged about 12 years under the guardian ship of his mother Naseema Begum (petitioner No. 3) though in Mohammedan law the mother cannot be guardian of her minor son as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail, AIR 1994 SC 1205. Even the Vakalatnama filed alongwith this writ petition does not state that the petitioner No. 3 mother is executing Vakalatnama as guardian of petitioner N. 5. To this the learned counsel for the petitioner states that since father of petitioner No. 5 is in jail hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner No. 5 is through the mother guardian. The mother has not executed any Vakalatnama in the capacity of guardian for petitioner No. 5 nor can she be appointed guardian for petitioner No. 5. This writ petition so far as he is concerned is not maintainable. Be sides, no legal material has been produced along with this petition for recording any positive finding that petitioner No. 5 is a minor.
(3.) THE writ petition asserts that petitioner No. 1 was married with petitioner' No. 2 earlier on 4-2-1996. THE learned coun sel for the petitioners strongly relied upon the testimony (Annexure- 3) of the petitioner No. 1 recorded under Section 200 Cr. PC. given in support of her complaint dated 22-7-1996. This claim cannot be ad judicated in this writ proceedings, besides it has not been stated that the necessary ceremonies which are required to be per formed during a Mohammedan marriage were performed at the time of the alleged marriage of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The allegation made in the first in formation report does show, prima facie, commission of offences by the petitioners Nos. 2 to 5. For this reason the first informa tion report cannot be quashed.;