State v. Ramesh Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No

vs. Ramesh Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.119 of 2019, under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sevrahi, District-Kushinagar pending in the court of Learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No-1, Kushinagar at Padrauna and quash the impugned charge sheet dated

26.09.2021 (bearing charge sheet no.A190/21) and also quash the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated

01.08.2022 passed by Learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No-1, Kushinagar at Padrauna. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings in Sessions Case No.538/2022 (State vs. Ramesh Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.119 of 2019, under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Sevrahi, District-Kushinagar pending in the court of Learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No-1, Kushinagar at Padrauna and stay the effect and operation of the impugned charge sheet dated 26.09.2021 (bearing charge sheet no.A190/21) and also stay the effect and operation of the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 01.08.2022 passed by Learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No-1, Kushinagar at Padrauna, and/or to may pass any other suitable order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant suffer irreparable loss and injury."

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted 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.

5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that criminal prosecution of applicant was set in motion when an FIR dated 21.05.2019 was lodged by the first informant-opposite party-4 Babulal Yadav (father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 0119 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station-Sevrahi, District- Kushi Nagar. In the aforesaid FIR, applicant-Ramesh Yadav was nominated as solitary named accused.

6. Subsequent to the aforementioned FIR, applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 15.05.2019 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 19.06.2019 has been brought on record and is at page 27 of the paper book. 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, two children namely (1) Arushi Kumari (date of birth 22.08.2020) and (2) Ayush Yadav (date of birth 13.06.2022)were born. Their birth certificates have also been brought on record and are at pages 48 and 49 of the paper book respectively. As per the birth certificates of the children 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 children. As such, the parties are now living together as a happy family along with their children. 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. As such, 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.

7. 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 applicants is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.

8. 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 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.

9. 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 washed 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 matters 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.

10. 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.

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

12. Issue notice to first informant-opposite party-4.

13. All the opposite parties may file their respective counter affidavits on or before the date fixed in the notice.

14. List this application for admission on 11.07.2025.

15. 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 Case No. 538 of 2022 (State Vs. Ramesh Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sevrahi, District-Kushinagar now pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.-1, Kushinagar at Padranu shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Vinay

vs. Ramesh Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.119 of 2019, under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sevrahi, District-Kushinagar pending in the court of Learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No-1, Kushinagar at Padrauna and quash the impugned charge sheet dated

26.09.2021 (bearing charge sheet no.A190/21) and also quash the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated

01.08.2022 passed by Learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No-1, Kushinagar at Padrauna. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings in Sessions Case No.538/2022 (State vs. Ramesh Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.119 of 2019, under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Sevrahi, District-Kushinagar pending in the court of Learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No-1, Kushinagar at Padrauna and stay the effect and operation of the impugned charge sheet dated 26.09.2021 (bearing charge sheet no.A190/21) and also stay the effect and operation of the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 01.08.2022 passed by Learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No-1, Kushinagar at Padrauna, and/or to may pass any other suitable order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant suffer irreparable loss and injury."

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted 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.

5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that criminal prosecution of applicant was set in motion when an FIR dated 21.05.2019 was lodged by the first informant-opposite party-4 Babulal Yadav (father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 0119 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station-Sevrahi, District- Kushi Nagar. In the aforesaid FIR, applicant-Ramesh Yadav was nominated as solitary named accused.

6. Subsequent to the aforementioned FIR, applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 15.05.2019 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 19.06.2019 has been brought on record and is at page 27 of the paper book. 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, two children namely (1) Arushi Kumari (date of birth 22.08.2020) and (2) Ayush Yadav (date of birth 13.06.2022)were born. Their birth certificates have also been brought on record and are at pages 48 and 49 of the paper book respectively. As per the birth certificates of the children 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 children. As such, the parties are now living together as a happy family along with their children. 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. As such, 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.

7. 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 applicants is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.

8. 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 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.

9. 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 washed 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 matters 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.

10. 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.

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

12. Issue notice to first informant-opposite party-4.

13. All the opposite parties may file their respective counter affidavits on or before the date fixed in the notice.

14. List this application for admission on 11.07.2025.

15. 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 Case No. 538 of 2022 (State Vs. Ramesh Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sevrahi, District-Kushinagar now pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.-1, Kushinagar at Padranu shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Vinay