State v. Chandrika Prasad pending in the court of Additional Session Judge

3. Heard Shri Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Ms. Sujeeta, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 5 i.e. complainant and victim, respectively.

4. The present application has been filed with following main prayer: "that the criminal proceedings of Criminal case/Trial no. 34 of 2015; State Versus Chandrika Prasad pending in the court of Additional Session Judge (POCSO Act), Ambedkar Nagar under section 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act relating to Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar along with Summoning order dated

03.06.2015 may kindly be quashed in terms of settlement/compromise dated 03.09.2024, in the interest of justice."

5. It is stated that the opposite party no. 2/informant, being annoyed with the relationship of the applicant and the opposite party no. 5/victim, who on her own volition left her parental house on

15.03.2019 and accompanied the applicant to District - Lucknow, lodged an FIR on 16.03.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0125 of 2019 at Police Station - Hanswar, District - Ambedkar Nagar, under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") making allegations therein to attract the offence under Sections 363, 363 IPC against the applicant/Rakesh Kumar.

6. It is also stated that after due investigation in the matter, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Case Crime No. 125 of 2019 (Supra) against the applicant.

7. It is also stated that during investigation the statement(s) of the opposite party no. 5/victim under Section(s) 161 and 164, respectively were recorded. From a perusal of these statements, it is apparent that the applicant and the opposite party no. 5/victim were having affair and the opposite party no. 5/victim was adamant to solemnize the marriage with the applicant and the opposite party no. 5 and the family members were opposing the same and therefore, she left her parental house on her own volition and accompanied the applicant therefrom to Lucknow and at Lucknow, the applicant and the opposite party no. 5/victim solemnized the marriage.

8. It is also stated that the opposite party no. 5/victim in her statement(s) of the victim under Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. indicated her age as seventeen years, as was told, and as per high school documents the date of birth of the opposite party no. 5/victim is

01.01.2002.

9. It is also stated that on the issue of age, the document on which the prosecution is placing reliance is liable to be ignored in view of the aforesaid facts of the case as also that to establish/prove that date of birth was correctly recorded in the high school recors there is no evidence available with the prosecution as such taking note of these facts of the case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397, shall be extended in favour of the applicant and the opposite party no.5/victim both.

10. It is also stated that before the trial Court, the opposite party no. 2/complainant and the opposite party no. 5/victim have not supported the story of the prosecution. According to the statements of the opposite party no. 2/complainant and the opposite party no. 5/victim, both, the date of birth of the opposite party no. 5/victim has not been correctly indicted in the school records.

11. It is also stated that in view of the aforesaid, the proceedings in issue against the applicant is liable to interfered/set aside/quashed else matrimonial life of opposite party no. 5/victim and the applicant would be ruined.

12. It is also stated that the counter affidavit of the opposite party no. 2/complainant supports the case of the applicant.

13. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra), Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice as also the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. 0125 of 2019, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

14. The application is allowed.

15. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance forthwith. Order Date :- 10.1.2025/Mohit Singh/-

3. Heard Shri Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Ms. Sujeeta, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 5 i.e. complainant and victim, respectively.

4. The present application has been filed with following main prayer: "that the criminal proceedings of Criminal case/Trial no. 34 of 2015; State Versus Chandrika Prasad pending in the court of Additional Session Judge (POCSO Act), Ambedkar Nagar under section 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act relating to Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar along with Summoning order dated

03.06.2015 may kindly be quashed in terms of settlement/compromise dated 03.09.2024, in the interest of justice."

5. It is stated that the opposite party no. 2/informant, being annoyed with the relationship of the applicant and the opposite party no. 5/victim, who on her own volition left her parental house on

15.03.2019 and accompanied the applicant to District - Lucknow, lodged an FIR on 16.03.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0125 of 2019 at Police Station - Hanswar, District - Ambedkar Nagar, under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") making allegations therein to attract the offence under Sections 363, 363 IPC against the applicant/Rakesh Kumar.

6. It is also stated that after due investigation in the matter, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Case Crime No. 125 of 2019 (Supra) against the applicant.

7. It is also stated that during investigation the statement(s) of the opposite party no. 5/victim under Section(s) 161 and 164, respectively were recorded. From a perusal of these statements, it is apparent that the applicant and the opposite party no. 5/victim were having affair and the opposite party no. 5/victim was adamant to solemnize the marriage with the applicant and the opposite party no. 5 and the family members were opposing the same and therefore, she left her parental house on her own volition and accompanied the applicant therefrom to Lucknow and at Lucknow, the applicant and the opposite party no. 5/victim solemnized the marriage.

8. It is also stated that the opposite party no. 5/victim in her statement(s) of the victim under Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. indicated her age as seventeen years, as was told, and as per high school documents the date of birth of the opposite party no. 5/victim is

01.01.2002.

9. It is also stated that on the issue of age, the document on which the prosecution is placing reliance is liable to be ignored in view of the aforesaid facts of the case as also that to establish/prove that date of birth was correctly recorded in the high school recors there is no evidence available with the prosecution as such taking note of these facts of the case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397, shall be extended in favour of the applicant and the opposite party no.5/victim both.

10. It is also stated that before the trial Court, the opposite party no. 2/complainant and the opposite party no. 5/victim have not supported the story of the prosecution. According to the statements of the opposite party no. 2/complainant and the opposite party no. 5/victim, both, the date of birth of the opposite party no. 5/victim has not been correctly indicted in the school records.

11. It is also stated that in view of the aforesaid, the proceedings in issue against the applicant is liable to interfered/set aside/quashed else matrimonial life of opposite party no. 5/victim and the applicant would be ruined.

12. It is also stated that the counter affidavit of the opposite party no. 2/complainant supports the case of the applicant.

13. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra), Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice as also the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. 0125 of 2019, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

14. The application is allowed.

15. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance forthwith. Order Date :- 10.1.2025/Mohit Singh/-