Allahabad High Court
GUDDI DEVI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR is quashed as the alleged victim is an adult of 18 years, and the alleged act was consensual, rendering further investigation unnecessary.
Summary
The petitioners, including Guddi Devi, filed a writ petition seeking quashment of an FIR dated 24‑05‑2025 that alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the POCSO Act. They contended that they are adults who voluntarily married each other and that Guddi Devi's age was incorrectly recorded as 17 in the FIR. The State responded that the petitioner’s age should be ascertained by an ossification test and her statement recorded under Section 183(5) of the B.N.S.S. The High Court ordered the ossification test and the recording of the statement, which later confirmed that Guddi Devi was 18 years old and that the marriage was of her free will. Finding no need for further investigation, the Court quashed the FIR and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR alleging offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 115(2), 352, 64(1), 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act should be quashed on the ground that the alleged victim is an adult and the act was consensual.
- Whether the age of the alleged victim must be determined by an ossification test and her statement recorded under Section 183(5) before deciding on the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 137(2), 183(5), 352, 64(1), 64(2), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- quash FIR
- age determination
- ossification test
- consent
- POCSO Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- writ petition
- adult marriage
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13658 of 2025
Guddi Devi And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aman Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
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 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
CRLP No. 13658 of 2025
2
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.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 21, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…