Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86636-DB Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8347 of 2025 Petitioner :- Neetu Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 28.3.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 88 of 2025, under Section 137(2) B.N.S., Police Station Bhawanpur, District- Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has next submitted that the victim is a major girl, however, no proof of age has been annexed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that from the allegation made in the first information report, prima facie no offence, complained of, is disclosed against the petitioner and, as such, the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned AGA has pointed out that even in the first information report, the victim has been stated to be 15 years of age and as per school certificate, her date of birth has been noted to be 5.12.2009 and as such, she is a minor and has been forcibly enticed away by the petitioner. 6. Learned AGA has further submitted that from the allegation made in the first information report, prima facie offence, complained of is clearly disclosed against the petitioner and, as such, the first information report cannot be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024, Directorate Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and others. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that even in the first information report, the victim has been stated to be 15 years of age and as per school certificate, her date of birth has been noted to be 5.12.2009, therefore, she is a minor girl and has been forcibly enticed away by the petitioner and in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the relevant law cited by the learned AGA and the fact that impugned first information report discloses cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the impugned first information report cannot be quashed. 8. The prayer for quashing of the first information report is therefore, refused. 9. The present writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 KU Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad