High Court

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Chitranshu Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant-Sushil in Crl. Revision No.4782 of 2022 and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

2. Perused the record.

3. On the matter being taken up the learned A.G.A. submits that notice of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has already been served upon first informant-opposite party no.3. However in spite of service of notice neither any counter affidavit has been filed by first informant/opposite party no.3 in opposition to this application for suspension of sentence nor any one has put in appearance on his behalf to oppose this application even in revised call.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below, however, in view of the facts as have now emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained any further. As such the present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission the learned counsel for applicant submits that an FIR dated 19.2.2018 was lodged by first informant opposite party no.2 Vijendra (father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No.0119 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Mawana, District Meerut. In the aforesaid FIR four persons namely, Raju, Kuldeep, Sushil and Rekha have been nominated as main accused. However, subsequent to the aforesaid FIR applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 07.04.2019 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Accordingly, prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. As such prosecutrix is started residing with the applicant as his legally wedded wife. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the marriage of the parties has been duly registered under the provisions of U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. Photocopy of the marriage registration certificate has been brought on record and the same is at page 43 of the paper book. According to the learned counsel for applicant since the marriage of the parties has been registered therefore, there is a statutory presumption with regard to valid and legal marriage of the parties. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that in view of aforementioned subsequent developments that have taken place, the criminality if any, committed by applicant now stands washed off. The chances of conviction of accused applicant are not only remote but also bleak. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, then a happy family shall stand broken. It is thus urged by learned counsel for applicant that the impugned proceedings are therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court. Reference was then made to the judgments of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police 2022 SCC Online SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan 2022 SCC Online SC 433 wherein the Apex Court quashed the proceedings against accused therein on the ground that he had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and further that court cannot turn a blind eye to aforesaid documents. No exception regarding aforementioned judgments can be carved out in the case of present applicant. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant. Further more the prosecutrix was a child within the meaning of the term child as defined in the POCSO Act, therefore, in view of above, the criminality if any, committed by applicant shall not get washed off on account of the subsequent developments as suggested by the learned counsel for applicant. Offence complained of against applicant is not only illegal but also immoral. The prosecutrix was a young girl aged about 18 years on the date of occurrence. In view of above offence complianed of against is not private in nature but against society. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this application with reference to the record at this stage.

6. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that applicant has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix which fact is clearly evident from the marriage registration certificate of the parties. Furthermore marriage of the parties has been registered under the provision of the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules 2017. As such there is a statutory presumption with regard to legal and valid marriage of the parties.

7. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.

8. Notice on behalf of State- opposite party 1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

9. Issue notice to opposite party no.4.

10. All the opposite parties are granted 4 weeks' time to file their respective counter affidavits. Applicant will have 2 weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavits.

11. List this application for admission on 28.05.2025 along with Crl. Revision No.4782 of 2022 (Sushil Vs. State of U.P. and Another).

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this application as noted herein above as well as Shriram Urav Vs. State of Chhatisgarh passed in Crl. Appeal No.41 of 2021 decided on 30.01.2025, the judgment of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police 2022 SCC Online SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan 2022 SCC Online SC 433 respectively as an interim measure, it is hereby provided that until further orders of this Court, further proceedings in Crl. Case No. 148 of 2018 (State Vs. Raju and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0119 of 2018, under Sections 366, 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station -Mawana, District- Meerut now pending in the Court of Special Executive Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District Judge, Meerut shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Md Faisal

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Chitranshu Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant-Sushil in Crl. Revision No.4782 of 2022 and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

2. Perused the record.

3. On the matter being taken up the learned A.G.A. submits that notice of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has already been served upon first informant-opposite party no.3. However in spite of service of notice neither any counter affidavit has been filed by first informant/opposite party no.3 in opposition to this application for suspension of sentence nor any one has put in appearance on his behalf to oppose this application even in revised call.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below, however, in view of the facts as have now emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained any further. As such the present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission the learned counsel for applicant submits that an FIR dated 19.2.2018 was lodged by first informant opposite party no.2 Vijendra (father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No.0119 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Mawana, District Meerut. In the aforesaid FIR four persons namely, Raju, Kuldeep, Sushil and Rekha have been nominated as main accused. However, subsequent to the aforesaid FIR applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 07.04.2019 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Accordingly, prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. As such prosecutrix is started residing with the applicant as his legally wedded wife. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the marriage of the parties has been duly registered under the provisions of U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. Photocopy of the marriage registration certificate has been brought on record and the same is at page 43 of the paper book. According to the learned counsel for applicant since the marriage of the parties has been registered therefore, there is a statutory presumption with regard to valid and legal marriage of the parties. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that in view of aforementioned subsequent developments that have taken place, the criminality if any, committed by applicant now stands washed off. The chances of conviction of accused applicant are not only remote but also bleak. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, then a happy family shall stand broken. It is thus urged by learned counsel for applicant that the impugned proceedings are therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court. Reference was then made to the judgments of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police 2022 SCC Online SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan 2022 SCC Online SC 433 wherein the Apex Court quashed the proceedings against accused therein on the ground that he had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and further that court cannot turn a blind eye to aforesaid documents. No exception regarding aforementioned judgments can be carved out in the case of present applicant. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant. Further more the prosecutrix was a child within the meaning of the term child as defined in the POCSO Act, therefore, in view of above, the criminality if any, committed by applicant shall not get washed off on account of the subsequent developments as suggested by the learned counsel for applicant. Offence complained of against applicant is not only illegal but also immoral. The prosecutrix was a young girl aged about 18 years on the date of occurrence. In view of above offence complianed of against is not private in nature but against society. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this application with reference to the record at this stage.

6. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that applicant has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix which fact is clearly evident from the marriage registration certificate of the parties. Furthermore marriage of the parties has been registered under the provision of the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules 2017. As such there is a statutory presumption with regard to legal and valid marriage of the parties.

7. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.

8. Notice on behalf of State- opposite party 1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

9. Issue notice to opposite party no.4.

10. All the opposite parties are granted 4 weeks' time to file their respective counter affidavits. Applicant will have 2 weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavits.

11. List this application for admission on 28.05.2025 along with Crl. Revision No.4782 of 2022 (Sushil Vs. State of U.P. and Another).

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this application as noted herein above as well as Shriram Urav Vs. State of Chhatisgarh passed in Crl. Appeal No.41 of 2021 decided on 30.01.2025, the judgment of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police 2022 SCC Online SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan 2022 SCC Online SC 433 respectively as an interim measure, it is hereby provided that until further orders of this Court, further proceedings in Crl. Case No. 148 of 2018 (State Vs. Raju and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0119 of 2018, under Sections 366, 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station -Mawana, District- Meerut now pending in the Court of Special Executive Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District Judge, Meerut shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Md Faisal