Renu alias Soldi v. Saurabh & Others) filed Under Section

6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named accused and also 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 and the impugned criminal proceedings pending against applicant before Court below are liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that criminal prosecution of applicant was set in motion when an application dated 24.09.2018 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by proseuctrix/complainant, which was subsequent treated to be as a complaint.

8. Subsequent to the aforementioned complaint, applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 20.11.2019 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. As such, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. By reason of above, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. Bona-fide of the parties is further evident from the fact that marriage of the parties has been registered under the provisions of U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. Photo copy of the marriage registration certificate dated 22.04.2025 has been brought on record as Annexure-S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that once the marriage of the parties has been registered under the relevant Rules then there is a statutory presumption with regard to valid and legal marriage of the parties. From the aforesaid wedlock, a female child namely Trisha was born. The birth certificate of child has also been brought on record and is at page 40 of the paper book. As per the birth certificate of the child born out of the wedlock of applicant and the prosecutrix, applicant is shown as the father, whereas the prosecutrix is shown as the mother of the child. On account of aforementioned facts, the prosecutrix has joined the applicant in present application as she has also filed her affidavit in support of present application. As such, there is nothing on record to either doubt the marriage of the parties, the bona-fide of the parties or that the parties are not living together as husband and wife. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that in view of aforementioned subsequent developments that have taken place, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant now stands washed of. In view of the subsequent developments as noted herein above, the chances of conviction of accused-applicant are not only remote but also bleak. The resulting trial shall only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the Courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.

9. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that no useful purpose shall now be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In case, the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.

10. Learned counsel for applicant has then invited the attention of Court to the judgments of Supreme Court in (1) K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, (ii) Mafat Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 6 SCC 589 and (iii). Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2024 (Shriram Urav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 30.01.2025, wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that the accused therein had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and further that Court cannot turn a blind eye to the said development. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that since the present applicant has also solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix, as such, no exception can be carved out in the case of present applicant. Moreover, the subsequent developments, which have taken place between the parties are not liable to be ignored by this Court. On the cumulative strength of above, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. contends that since the prosecutrix was a child within the meaning of the term 'child' as defined in the POCSO Act on the date of occurrence, therefore, the subsequent developments, if any, will not off the criminality committed by applicant as suggested by the learned counsel for applicant. Criminality alleged to have been committed by applicant is not private in nature but a crime against society. The prosecutrix was a young and innocent girl below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. Applicant is guilty of dislodging the modesty of prosecutrix. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021, the learned A.G.A. submits that the Apex Court in aforementioned judgment has itself provided that there can be no compromise in proceedings under the POCSO Act. 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 with reference to the record at this stage.

12. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that applicant has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and from the aforesaid wedlock, a female child namely Trisha was born. The parties are now living together along with their child as a happy family.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.

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

15. No notice is required to be issued to the victim/opposite party- 2 as she has also filed her affidavit in support of present application.

16. Learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 prays for and is granted 4 weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Applicant will have 2 weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavit.

17. List this application for admission on 15.07.2025.

18. 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 the judgments of Supreme Court referred to above, as an interim measure, it is, hereby, provided that until further orders of this Court, further proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2018 (Reenu @ Soldi Vs. Saurabh Kumar and Others), under Section 376 IPC, Police Station-Marihan, District-Sonbhadra, now pending in the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sonbhadra shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Vinay

6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named accused and also 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 and the impugned criminal proceedings pending against applicant before Court below are liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that criminal prosecution of applicant was set in motion when an application dated 24.09.2018 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by proseuctrix/complainant, which was subsequent treated to be as a complaint.

8. Subsequent to the aforementioned complaint, applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 20.11.2019 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. As such, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. By reason of above, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. Bona-fide of the parties is further evident from the fact that marriage of the parties has been registered under the provisions of U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. Photo copy of the marriage registration certificate dated 22.04.2025 has been brought on record as Annexure-S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that once the marriage of the parties has been registered under the relevant Rules then there is a statutory presumption with regard to valid and legal marriage of the parties. From the aforesaid wedlock, a female child namely Trisha was born. The birth certificate of child has also been brought on record and is at page 40 of the paper book. As per the birth certificate of the child born out of the wedlock of applicant and the prosecutrix, applicant is shown as the father, whereas the prosecutrix is shown as the mother of the child. On account of aforementioned facts, the prosecutrix has joined the applicant in present application as she has also filed her affidavit in support of present application. As such, there is nothing on record to either doubt the marriage of the parties, the bona-fide of the parties or that the parties are not living together as husband and wife. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that in view of aforementioned subsequent developments that have taken place, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant now stands washed of. In view of the subsequent developments as noted herein above, the chances of conviction of accused-applicant are not only remote but also bleak. The resulting trial shall only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the Courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.

9. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that no useful purpose shall now be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In case, the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.

10. Learned counsel for applicant has then invited the attention of Court to the judgments of Supreme Court in (1) K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, (ii) Mafat Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 6 SCC 589 and (iii). Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2024 (Shriram Urav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 30.01.2025, wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that the accused therein had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and further that Court cannot turn a blind eye to the said development. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that since the present applicant has also solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix, as such, no exception can be carved out in the case of present applicant. Moreover, the subsequent developments, which have taken place between the parties are not liable to be ignored by this Court. On the cumulative strength of above, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. contends that since the prosecutrix was a child within the meaning of the term 'child' as defined in the POCSO Act on the date of occurrence, therefore, the subsequent developments, if any, will not off the criminality committed by applicant as suggested by the learned counsel for applicant. Criminality alleged to have been committed by applicant is not private in nature but a crime against society. The prosecutrix was a young and innocent girl below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. Applicant is guilty of dislodging the modesty of prosecutrix. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021, the learned A.G.A. submits that the Apex Court in aforementioned judgment has itself provided that there can be no compromise in proceedings under the POCSO Act. 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 with reference to the record at this stage.

12. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that applicant has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and from the aforesaid wedlock, a female child namely Trisha was born. The parties are now living together along with their child as a happy family.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.

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

15. No notice is required to be issued to the victim/opposite party- 2 as she has also filed her affidavit in support of present application.

16. Learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 prays for and is granted 4 weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Applicant will have 2 weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavit.

17. List this application for admission on 15.07.2025.

18. 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 the judgments of Supreme Court referred to above, as an interim measure, it is, hereby, provided that until further orders of this Court, further proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2018 (Reenu @ Soldi Vs. Saurabh Kumar and Others), under Section 376 IPC, Police Station-Marihan, District-Sonbhadra, now pending in the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sonbhadra shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Vinay