- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Rahul and Pratibha Dhiman, the two petitioners have filed the present writ petition with the prayer that FIR of Crime No. 14 of 2008, under sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar be quashed. The ancillary prayer is for stay of arrest.
(2.) IN brief the impugned FIR was lodged by Raj Kumar Dhiman, father of petitioner No. 2, Pratibha Dhiman, with the allegations that in the night of 28. 12. 2007 at 8. 00 p. m. his daughter petitioner No. 2 Pratibha Dhiman was cleaning utensils when petitioner No. 1 Rahul along with one more companion armed with country-made pistol came to the house of the in formant and forcibly abducted Pratibha Dhiman. INformant Raj Kumar Dhiman raised hue and cry and he along with his son Mukesh attempted to get Pratibha Dhiman rescued but they were threatened and Pratibha Dhiman was abducted. Police gave assurances to act and recover Pratibha Dhiman but did not recover her and there fore, informant moved an application be fore DIG on the basis of which the im pugned FIR was registered as Crime No. 14 of 2008, under sections 363, 366 IPC at Po lice Station Khatauli, District Muzaffar Na gar, which FIR is being sought to be quashed by the two petitioners. On the said facts we have heard SriVinod Kumar Sahu,learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Amit Daga, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 Raj Kumar Dhiman, who is the informant of the impugned FIR and father of petitioner No. 2 as well as learned AGA in opposi tion. Counter affidavit has been filed by re spondent No. 4 informant Raj Kumar Dhi man to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petition ers contended that both the petitioners, namely, Rahul and Pratibha Dhiman are major and they have solemnized their marriage on their own volition without any threat or coercion because they were in love with each other and therefore, the im pugned FIR be quashed. Both the petition ers are co-villagers and they knew each other very well. They have solemnized the marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also got it registered on 10. 1. 2008 vide Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. It is fur ther contended, on the basis of Annexure Nos. 2 and 3, which are the age certificate issued from the office from C. M. O. De hradun, both dated 9. 1. 2008, that Pratibha Dhiman is aged about 18 years and Rahul Kumar is of 22 years of age. The marriage registration certificate is Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that since both the petitioners have married, the impugned FIR be quashed.
(3.) CONTRARILY Sri Amti Dagga, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, basing his argument on the counter affi davit submitted that petitioner No. 2 is a minor and the marriage solemnized by her is void being contrary to section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act. In the counter affidavit in formant has denied the fact that petitioner No. 2 Pratibha Dhiman is a major. He has filed school leaving certificate wherein date of birth of Pratibha Dhiman is recorded as 1. 6. 1995. The said certificate CA-1 has been issued by the Principal Primary School, Antwar District Muzaffarnagar. Vide An nexure CA-2 informant has filed the photo copy of the Ration Card of his family members wherein age of petitioner No. 2 is recorded as 13 years. Vide Annexure No. CA-3 to the counter affidavit the horoscope and the leep has been filed wherein also the date of birth of petitioner No. 2 is recorded as 1. 6. 1995. In the rejoinder affidavit there is absolutely no documentary evidence filed to rebut the aforesaid Annexures-CA-1 to CA-3 and the emphasis has been laid only on the medical certificate issued by : C. M. O. Dehradun.;