# Ruchi Kashyap v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 716
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-06
- **Case number:** Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2014
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala, Amar Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ruchi-kashyap-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43287
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India. Art.-21-petitioner
seeking protection from her father on
2 All] Ruchi Kashyap Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
717
apprehension of life danger-petitioner
being major working in private MNCcompetent to take decision-petitioner
not disclosed her living place-missing
FIR
already
lodge-no
interference
required-petitioner
to
appear
before
concern police station-who may take
appropriate steps-if violence allegationfound recourse of law under Domestic
Violence Act 2005-petition disposed of.
Held: Para-9
From the assertions made in the writ
petition, we are of the opinion that it is
not a case of threat perception of her life
which warrants a security cover to be
provided to her. Article 21 of the
Constitution should not be invoked in
this cavalier fashion. It is sacrosanct
provision, which should be invoked with
full responsibility. From the assertions
made in the writ petition, it is clear that
a case of a domestic violence, if any
could be made out. In such a situation,
the
petitioner
could
approach
the
appropriate forum under the Protection
Of Women From Domestic Violence Act,

## Text

716
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot be quashed on the ground that the
parties have settled their dispute in terms
of the compromise. Moreover as the
compromise (Annexure No. 6) has not
been been duly proved by the parties in
the court hence it is just like a waste paper
and no reliance can be placed upon it.
7.
Considering all the facts and
circumstances, at this stage it cannot be said
that no offence is made out against the
applicants. All the submissions made at the
bar relate to the disputed questions of fact,
which cannot be adjudicated upon by this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this
stage only prima facie case is to be seen in
the light of the law laid down by Supreme
Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of
Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992
SCC
(Cr.)
192
and
lastly
Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.
Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC
(Cr.) 283. Although criminal proceedings
may be quashed under inherent jurisdiction if
the parties have compromised even in the
non-compoundable cases as per the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, and also
in Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of
Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2014
decided on 27th March 2014, in which
Honble Supreme Court has quashed the
criminal proceedings involving section 307
of IPC. However, in the present case, as the
complainant has died and the compromise
deed filed by the applicant as Annexure No.
6 does not reflect that it has ever been duly
verified and accepted by the court concerned,
no reliance can be placed on it for quashing
of the charge-sheet.
8. Hence, the prayer for quashing
the entire proceeding as well as charge
sheet submitted in the aforesaid case is
refused.
9. However, it is directed that in
case the applicant appears and surrenders
before the court below within 30 days
from today and applies for bail, his prayer
for bail shall be considered and decided in
view of the settled law laid by this Court
in the case of Amrawati and another Vs.
State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR
290 as well as judgement passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3)
ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap
Singh Vs. State of U.P.
10. It is made clear that the applicant
will not be granted any further time by
this Court for surrendering before the
Court below as directed above.
11With the aforesaid directions, this
application is finally disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 14897 of 2015
Ruchi Kashyap
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mahipal Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Sri S.C.
Dwivedi
Constitution of India. Art.-21-petitioner
seeking protection from her father on
2 All] Ruchi Kashyap Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
717
apprehension of life danger-petitioner
being major working in private MNCcompetent to take decision-petitioner
not disclosed her living place-missing
FIR
already
lodge-no
interference
required-petitioner
to
appear
before
concern police station-who may take
appropriate steps-if violence allegationfound recourse of law under Domestic
Violence Act 2005-petition disposed of.
Held: Para-9
From the assertions made in the writ
petition, we are of the opinion that it is
not a case of threat perception of her life
which warrants a security cover to be
provided to her. Article 21 of the
Constitution should not be invoked in
this cavalier fashion. It is sacrosanct
provision, which should be invoked with
full responsibility. From the assertions
made in the writ petition, it is clear that
a case of a domestic violence, if any
could be made out. In such a situation,
the
petitioner
could
approach
the
appropriate forum under the Protection
Of Women From Domestic Violence Act,
2005.
The
writ
forum
is
not
the
appropriate forum for such purpose.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,
J.)
1. We have heard Sri Mahipal
Singh, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel
for the State and Sri M.C.Chaturvedi, the
learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has
dragged her father, respondent no.4 to this
Court with the prayer that she should be
given protection by the State against her
father as she feels threatened that her life
would be in danger by the action of her
father. The allegation, in short is, that the
petitioner has become major, has a pan
card and is working in a private firm and
that her father is forcing her to get
married to a stranger against her wishes.
In this regard, the petitioner's father is
threatening her and sometimes beats her
up. The petitioner contends that in this
regard, she moved an application before
the Senior Superintendent of Police
(hereinafter referred to as the SSP),
Meerut on 13.03.2015 bringing all these
facts to his knowledge and, on
her
application, the SSP directed the Station
House Officer (hereinafter referred to as
the SHO), Brahampuri to conduct an
enquiry and ensure that no untoward
incident happens. The petitioner contends
that without making due enquiry, the
SHO
lodged
a
missing
report
on
14.03.2015 at the instance of her father
presumably
in
retaliation
to
her
application.
This
necessitated
the
petitioner to rush to this Court in filing
this writ petition.
3. By our order dated 23.03.2015,
we had directed the SSP to file a counter
affidavit indicating as to why a missing
report was lodged when the petitioner was
present before him on 13.03.2015. The
counter affidavit filed by the SSP
indicates
that
the
petitioner
had
approached her on 13.03.2015 and on her
application, had directed the SHO to
investigate and ensure that no untoward
incident takes place. The counter affidavit
further reveals that on the father's
application, a missing report was lodged
on 14.03.2015. Unfortunately, the counter
affidavit does not reveal as to what
investigation was done on the petitioner's
application. It is apparently clear that the
SHO did not make the relevant and
desired investigation on the petitioner's
application, but proceeded on the father's
application. This is some what strange
and undesirable. The police is required to
take an independent and impartial stand.
718
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Be that as it may. The present
situation is, that the petitioner is present in
person before this Court. Respondent
no.4, namely, the father is also present.
Before lunch we had directed the learned
counsel for both the parties to give an
opportunity to the parties to speak to each
other since the petitioner is the daughter
of respondent no.4. During lunch recess,
the parties met and it transpires that the
petitioner is adamant in living alone and
does not want to reside with her father
though she has indicated that her father
could visit her whenever he desires.
5. Respondent no.4, being the father, is
anxious for the welfare and safety of her
daughter and, in that scenario, if he has used
harsh words or if he has given a threat in
some manner, it was only for the protection
of her welfare and it does not mean that there
was a perceptible threat on the life of the
petitioner. Nothing has come forward before
this Court to indicate that a real threat
perception exists. In fact, the prayer made by
the petitioner before this Court is, that she
should not be harassed in any manner and
that the respondents should be restrained
from interfering in her life. Prayer no.3 is
with regard to providing security by the State
machinery on the apprehension of threat to
her life from her father and her relatives.
6. The law is very clear. Article 21
of the Constitution of India provides that
every citizen has a right to live with
dignity and with respect. If a real threat
perception exists, the Court will definitely
interfere in the matter and provide a
security cover. But merely, on an
apprehension, a security cover cannot be
provided.
7. In the facts and circumstances,
which has been depicted in the writ
petition and what we have stated
aforesaid, we are of the opinion that on
such bald assertion and on mere allegation
of apprehension about her life, no security
can be provided to the petitioner by the
State.
8. The learned counsel for the
respondent no.4, i.e., the father has made
a statement that if petitioner desires to
live independently she could do so
without any fear from him and that he will
not come in the way of her living a
peaceful life. The learned counsel for
respondent no.4 submitted that the father
is only apprehensive about her welfare
and if the petitioner chooses to live her
life in her own fashion, she could do so
without any interference.
9. From the assertions made in the
writ petition, we are of the opinion that it
is not a case of threat perception of her
life which warrants a security cover to be
provided to her. Article 21 of the
Constitution should not be invoked in this
cavalier
fashion.
It
is
sacrosanct
provision, which should be invoked with
full responsibility. From the assertions
made in the writ petition, it is clear that a
case of a domestic violence, if any could
be made out. In such a situation, the
petitioner could approach the appropriate
forum under the Protection Of Women
From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The
writ forum is not the appropriate forum
for such purpose.
10. From the counter affidavit of the
SSP it is clear that the petitioner is major
and is working in a private firm. She has
the freedom and liberty to live her life
according to her own choice and will. No
one can come in her way, not even her
father, respondent no.4. We, however,
2 All]
 Ram Pyare Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
719
find that the father has lodged a missing
report, which is being investigated by the
police. The petitioner has categorically
stated that she is living somewhere but
has not disclosed her residential address.
11. We, accordingly, dispose of the
writ petition directing the petitioner to
appear before the SHO, Brahampuri,
District Meerut within ten days from
today and disclose her residential address.
Upon such information being provided to
the police, the SHO will consign the
missing report to the records. In the event,
the petitioner feels that her father or any
of her relatives is subjecting her to any act
from which she feels threatened, it would
be open to the petitioner to move an
application before the appropriate forum
for redressal of her grievance.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 15797 of 2015
Ram Pyare Pal
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.K. Mishra, Sri H.N. Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shyam Kumar Gupta, Sri Sunil
Kumar Singh, Sri N.L. Pandey
(A) Constitution of India, Art.-226-Writ
petition maintainability-petitioner being
member of general body-challenging
election
process
of
management-on
ground of not inclusion of name of 54
members-materially effect the resultadmittedly the petitioner already on role
of
election-no
individual
rights
of
petitioner-going to affected-not within
aggrieved person-petition on behalf of
petitioner-not maintainable.
Held: Para-9
In the judgments referred to above this
Court has taken the consistent view that
an individual member does not have a
right to assail the decision or action
taken
in
respect
of
a
society
or
association of which he was a member
unless his rights personally get effected
by the impugned action.
(B)Constitution of India, Art.-226-Writ
jurisdiction-scope of interference with
process of election-discussed-in view of
Apex
Court
decision-when
election
process started-either Civil Court or High
Court no jurisdiction to interfere.
Held: Para-14
This Court is of the clear opinion that any
interference in the matter at this stage
would clearly stall and affect the process
of elections which has already been set
in motion. This Court must necessarily
bear in mind the fact that the finalization
of a list by the Assistant Registrar by
virtue of exercise of powers under the
Act, 1860 is based upon a prima facie
view taken by him.
Case Law discussed:
2010 (1) ADJ 262; 2013 (10) ADJ 532; 2006
(6) AWC 6354; AIR 1980 SC 1612; 2000 (8)
SCC 216; 1997 (1) UPLBEC 415; 1997 (3) ESC
1807; 2010 (1) ADJ 262; 2004 (11) SCC 247;
2014 (5) ADJ 263.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)
1. The challenge in the present
petition is to an order dated 4th March,
2015 in terms of which the electoral
college of the Society Sri Tilak Kisan
Laghu
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya,
Kamhariya, Post Padari Bazar, Tehsil
Salempur, District Deoria has come to be
finalized
and
an
election
schedule