MANNU CHAUHAN ALIAS SURAJ CHAUHAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
CRLP/16091/2025 · 2025-09-23
Santosh Rai, Siddharth
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 78894 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 78894 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16091 of 2025 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 07.08.2024 being Case Crime No. 253 of 2024 under section 137(2), 87 B.N.S.S., Police Station- Bansdih, District-Ballia,, registered against the petitioner no.1 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent nos. 2 to not arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned first information report dated 07.08.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 253 of 2024 under section 137(2), 87 B.N.S.S., Police Station- Bansdih, District- Ballia,. (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition)."
3. As per F.I.R., the minor daughter of the first informant aged about 13 years had gone to her college for admission but did not return. She came to know that her daughter has been enticed away by the petitioner, Mannu Chauhan Alias Suraj Chauhan. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is case of false implication. As per statements of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and Section 183 B.N.S.S., it is clear that she left her house without informing anyone on 23.07.2024 and went to Banglore by train thereafter she returned to Ballia on 26.08.2024 and came to her place along with her mother on 27.08.2024. She had not made any allegation against the petitioner. She has denied that the petitioner enticed her away or committed any offance against her. She stated that she does not loves the petitioner and only gone with him for excursion. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dharmendra Kumar, G.A. Mannu Chauhan Alias Suraj Chauhan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. The statements of the victim recorded before the Investigating Officer under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and before the court under Section 183 B.N.S.S. have been placed before this Court by learned A.G.A. along with case diary. 6.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the victim is minor and, therefore, the petitioner has committed the offence alleged against him. 7. After hearing rival submissions of the parties, this Court finds that Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of S.Varadarajan vs. State of Madras reported in 1965 A.I.R. 942 has held that for establishing charge of kidnapping of minor from lawful guardianship, there must be evidence of active inducement or persuasion by the accused, not just passive acceptance of the minor voluntarily departure from custody of his/her guardian. This Court finds that in the present case there is no evidence on record to prove that the victim was persuaded or enticed away from the custody of her lawful guardian on any pretext or assurance. The victim left her house to take admission in the college but eloped from there. She claims her age as 17 years in the statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 13 years in the statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. but her minority will not effect the fate of this case. There is also no allegation that the petitioner enticed her away with intention to marry, therefore, offence alleged agaisnt the petitioner under Section 137(2) and 87 B.N.S. are not made out against the petitioner. Hence, the impugned F.I.R. deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 8. The writ petition is allowed. 9. Investigating Officer of this case is directed to make entry of this order in the case diary. 10. Registrar(Compliance) will communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, Ballia within one week. September 24, 2025 Asha CRLP No. 16091 of 2025 2 (Santosh Rai,J.) (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad