Manoj Kumar and Another vs Senior Superintendent of Police and Others

Binood Kumar Roy and Ram Kishore Singh, JJ.—Heard Sri R.C. Pal, learned Counsel in support of the prayers made in this writ petition. Sri Pal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that Petitioner No. 2 was in fact major. This was also the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer, Farrukhabad. Despite notice issued to Respondent No. 3 the informant no counter-affidavit has been filed by him and thus the statements made in the writ petition be accepted as true.

Petitioner No. 1, Manoj Kumar son of Jagdish Chandra Tewari figures as accused No. 4 in the impugned First Information Report. On a perusal of the First Information Report prima Jacie an offence has been made out against Petitioner No. 1 and others.

Petitioner No. 2 claims herself to be wife of Manoj Kumar aforementioned but she does not figure in the First Information Report as an accused and was claimed to be aged only about 14 years on the day of occurrence and who was enticed away by the Petitioner and four others. Since she does not figure as an accused the First Information Report cannot be quashed at her instance.

It is true that the informant has not filed any counter-affidavit but on the record there is a counter-affidavit, filed by the State in which it has been stated, inter alia, that from a prima Jacie perusal of the First Information Report it is clear that Geeta was enticed away by Jagdish Chandra Tewari and members of his family which was seen by independent witnesses; it has been wrongly stated in the writ petition that the First Information Report was not instituted after deliberation; no medical certificate was produced at the time of filing of the charge-sheet nor has any evidence made available in regard to alleged marriage between the Petitioners at the Temple of Lord Shiva on 5.5.95: it has been wrongly stated that Petitioner No. 2 will be murdered, if she goes to her parents'' house; after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the Petitioner and other accused persons and accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

The fact of submission of charge-sheet has not been denied at the Bar and thus this writ petition has become infructuous and in this backdrop we do not want to make any comment in regard to the documents appended with this writ petition.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri Sudhir Mehrotra learned A.G.A. by 23.12.98 for its communication to the authority concerned.