KIRAN PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of writ petition, a challenge has been made to the First Information Report No. 0539 of 2019, registered on 03.06.2019 with Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh for the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC & Section 7/8 POCSO Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an offence under Section 363 IPC is not made out as ingredients of Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not satisfied. The perusal of the first information report does not show any allegation that petitioner enticed minor below 18 years. In absence of such allegation, the case would not fall under Section 363 IPC. Reference of Section 366 IPC has also been given. It is to demonstrate that even the offence under the said provision is not made out. In view of above, the first information report deserves to be quashed.

(3.) It is submitted that in the school certificate, the age of the girl has been shown to be 10.07.2003. The said date of birth is not correctly recorded in the high school examination certificate. The female is at the age of more than 18 years and if it is counted by the Aadhar Card then more than 16 years. Petitioner no. 1 is major. The offence under Section 363 IPC is thus not made out. It is also stated that both the petitioners have married with each other. In those circumstances also, first information report deserves to be quashed. A reference of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Varadarajan vs. State of Madras, 1965 AIR(SC) 942 has been given. Further reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shaheen Parveen and Anr. vs. The State of U.P. and Ors. [W.P. No. 3519 (MB) of 2015] decided vide order dated 23.07.2015 has been given. Prayer is not only to quash the first information report but to give protection to the petitioner.