Allahabad High Court
CRLP/13658/2025 of GUDDI DEVI AND 2 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS on 20 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13658 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13658 of 2025
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner today is taken on record.
3. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report dated 24.5.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No.0159 of 2025, under Section 137(2), 87, 115(2), 352, 64(1) & 64(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Kyoladia, District Bareilly.
4. On 08.07.2025, the following order was being passed :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report dated 24.5.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No.0159 of 2025, under Section 137(2), 87, 115(2), 352, 64(1) & 64(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Kyoladia, District Bareilly.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are adults and they have married each other of their own free volition. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the age of the petitioner no. 1 is more than eighteen years and wrongly her age has been mentioned as seventeen years in the first information report.
4. Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it would be in the fitness of things that the age of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aman Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Guddi Devi And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
the petitioner no. 1 be determined by the method of ossification test and also her statement be recorded under Section 183(5) of B.N.S.S., 2023.
5. We consider it appropriate that the petitioner no. 1 may get her age determined by the method of ossification test and also get recorded her statement under the relevant laws before the concerned Magistrate.
6. The Investigating Officer may facilitate the recording of the statement and also the determination of the age of the petitioner no.1.
7. Put up this case on 14.8.2025 as fresh. On that date the ossification report and the statement recorded be brought on record.
8. Till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the instant case. "
5. Today, when the case was taken up, ossification test report by means of rejoinder affidavit has been placed before this Court indicating therein that the petitioner no. 1 was 18 years of age. From the record also, we find that in the rejoinder affidavit, statement of the victim under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has been recorded, which is as follows :- "अवलोकन बयान धारा 183 बी0एन0एस0एस वयान अन्तर्गत धारा 183 BNSS पीडिता गुड्डी देवी पिता बुद्धसेन उम्र 18 वर्ष निवासी मधुनंगला बरेली द्वारा सशपथ बयान किया गया कि में दिनांक 17/05/2025 को रमन के साथ उडीसा चली गई थी वहा हमने मन्दिर में शादी कर ली है हम पति पत्नी की तरह रह रहे है। मैंने अपनी मर्जी से शादी की है। मै रमन को 3 साल जानती हूँ में रमन के साथ ही रहना चहाती हूँ। मैं अपने घर नहीं जाना चहाती हूँ मेरे घर वाले मुझे मार देंगे। मेरे दारा पीडिता के बोलने पर अपने हस्तलेख मे शब्दश अंकित किया गया। हस्ताक्षर अग्रेजी FARHA 03.06.2025 सुनकर तस्दीक किया। गुड्डी देवी।"
6. The instant writ petition is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the material available on record, we are of the view that no further investigation is required in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the First Information Report dated 24.5.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No.0159 of 2025, under Section 137(2), 87, 115(2), 352, 64(1) & 64(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Kyoladia, District Bareilly is quashed. The instant writ petition stands allowed. September 21, 2026 Sumit S CRLP No. 13658 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad