High Court · 2025

Heard Mr. Prmod Kumar, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2. Perused the record. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused applicant Rohit Rawat with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the criminal proceeding of case no. 146 of 2016 (State Vs. Rohit Rawat) arising out of charge sheet dated 23.06.2016 in case crime no. 182 of 2016, under section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad, Pending before Special Court, POCSO Act, Ghaziabad. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of case no. 146 of 2016 (State Vs. Rohit Rawat) arising out of charge sheet dated 23.06.2016 in case crime no. 182 of 2016, under section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad, Pending before Special Court, POCSO Act, Ghaziabad. And /or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." Learned counsel for applicant submits that though the applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and is also facing trial before Court below in Session Trial No. 146 of 2016 (State Vs. Rohit Rawat), under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station- Link Road, Ghaziabad, however, in view of the subsequent facts and circumstances that have emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained now. In furtherance of aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for applicant submits that criminal prosecution of applicant commenced when an F.I.R. dated 28.4.2016 was lodged by first informant Virendra Saxena, (father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 182 of 2016, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Ac, Police Station- Link Road, District- Ghaziabad. However, prior to the aforesaid F.I.R. the prosecutrix had solemnized marriage with applicant on 9.4.2016. As such, prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. On account of above the prosecutrix started residing with the applicant as his legally wedded wife. On account of co-habitation of applicant with the prosecutrix as husband and wife, three children namely, Kartik, Palak and Harsh were born. In view of aforementioned subsequent development, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant stands washed of. It is on account of above that parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement arrived at by the parties, a compromise was entered into. Thereafter, the compromise so entered into by the parties was reduced to writing. Copy of the original compromise has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant, as in view of the subsequent development and the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused applicant are not only bleak but also remote. Reference was then made to the family register of the applicant. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In case the impugned proceedings are allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. Consequently, the present application is liable to be allowed. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 have opposed the present application. They submit that since prosecutrix was a child within the meaning of the term child as defined in the POCSO Act, on the date of occurrence, therefore, the criminality committed by applicant shall not stand wiped out, in view of the subsequent developments, as suggested by the learned counsel for applicant. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court. 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. Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant- opposite party-2 on the other hand submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. It is contended by the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party- 2 that it is an admitted fact that prior to the F.I.R. giving rise to present proceedings, the prosecutrix had solemnized marriage with applicant. From the aforesaid wedlock, three children have been born. He therefore submits that he cannot have any objection, in case the present application is decided by this Court, taking into consideration aforesaid facts. Be that as it may, having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that prior to the F.I.R. dated 28.4.2016, lodged by first informant/opposite party-2 Virendra Saxena, giving rise to present proceedings, the prosecutrix had already solemnized marriage with the applicant on 9.4.2016. Consequently, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. On account of above, the prosecutrix started residing with the applicant as his legally wedded wife. On account of co- habitation of applicant-prosecutrix, as husband and wife three children namely, Kartik, Palak and Harsh were born. In the extract of the family register, pertaining to the applicant, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by applicant, the prosecutrix is shown as wife of applicant. In view of aforesaid subsequent developments, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant now stands washed of. The bonafide of applicant is further established from the fact that prosecutrix has joined the applicant in present application inasmuch as the affidavit filed in support of present application has been sworn by the prosecutrix herself. Furthermore, on account of aforesaid development, parties have entered into compromise as is evident from the compromise, which is on record at Annexure- S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit. In view of above, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In case the impugned proceedings are allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. At this juncture reference be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, wherein the Apex Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that parties have solemnized marriage. Since the judgement is a short one therefore the same is reproduced in its entirety: ""1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix belongs to Valayar community, which is a most backward community in the State of Tamilnadu. He worksas a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him forcommitting rape under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was convicted after trial for committing the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur on 31.10.2018. The High Court, by an order dated 13.02.2019, upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that allegation against him was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her. He stated that, in fact, he married the prosecutrix and they have two children. 4. The appellant submitted that this Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ought to do complete justice and it could not be in the interest of justice to disturb the family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.

5. After hearing the matter for some time on 08th March, 2022, we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has categorically stated that she has two children and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life.

6. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix He expressed his apprehension that the said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him. is not legal.

7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with maternal uncle.

8. For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

9. In case, the appellant does not take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can move this Court for modification of this Order." In the present case also the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the applicant and from aforesaid wedlock, three children are born. It is thus apparent that applicant is the father, whereas the prosecutrix is mother of the children. As such, no objective can be achieved in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant, in case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. In view of the discussion made herein above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 2016 (State Vs. Rohit Rawat), under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station- Link Road, Ghaziabad, now pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.3- Ghaziabad shall stand quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Arshad ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Mr. Prmod Kumar, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2. Perused the record. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused applicant Rohit Rawat with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the criminal proceeding of case no. 146 of 2016 (State Vs. Rohit Rawat) arising out of charge sheet dated 23.06.2016 in case crime no. 182 of 2016, under section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad, Pending before Special Court, POCSO Act, Ghaziabad. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of case no. 146 of 2016 (State Vs. Rohit Rawat) arising out of charge sheet dated 23.06.2016 in case crime no. 182 of 2016, under section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad, Pending before Special Court, POCSO Act, Ghaziabad. And /or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." Learned counsel for applicant submits that though the applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and is also facing trial before Court below in Session Trial No. 146 of 2016 (State Vs. Rohit Rawat), under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station- Link Road, Ghaziabad, however, in view of the subsequent facts and circumstances that have emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained now. In furtherance of aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for applicant submits that criminal prosecution of applicant commenced when an F.I.R. dated 28.4.2016 was lodged by first informant Virendra Saxena, (father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 182 of 2016, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Ac, Police Station- Link Road, District- Ghaziabad. However, prior to the aforesaid F.I.R. the prosecutrix had solemnized marriage with applicant on 9.4.2016. As such, prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. On account of above the prosecutrix started residing with the applicant as his legally wedded wife. On account of co-habitation of applicant with the prosecutrix as husband and wife, three children namely, Kartik, Palak and Harsh were born. In view of aforementioned subsequent development, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant stands washed of. It is on account of above that parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement arrived at by the parties, a compromise was entered into. Thereafter, the compromise so entered into by the parties was reduced to writing. Copy of the original compromise has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant, as in view of the subsequent development and the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused applicant are not only bleak but also remote. Reference was then made to the family register of the applicant. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In case the impugned proceedings are allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. Consequently, the present application is liable to be allowed. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 have opposed the present application. They submit that since prosecutrix was a child within the meaning of the term child as defined in the POCSO Act, on the date of occurrence, therefore, the criminality committed by applicant shall not stand wiped out, in view of the subsequent developments, as suggested by the learned counsel for applicant. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court. 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. Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant- opposite party-2 on the other hand submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. It is contended by the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party- 2 that it is an admitted fact that prior to the F.I.R. giving rise to present proceedings, the prosecutrix had solemnized marriage with applicant. From the aforesaid wedlock, three children have been born. He therefore submits that he cannot have any objection, in case the present application is decided by this Court, taking into consideration aforesaid facts. Be that as it may, having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that prior to the F.I.R. dated 28.4.2016, lodged by first informant/opposite party-2 Virendra Saxena, giving rise to present proceedings, the prosecutrix had already solemnized marriage with the applicant on 9.4.2016. Consequently, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. On account of above, the prosecutrix started residing with the applicant as his legally wedded wife. On account of co- habitation of applicant-prosecutrix, as husband and wife three children namely, Kartik, Palak and Harsh were born. In the extract of the family register, pertaining to the applicant, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by applicant, the prosecutrix is shown as wife of applicant. In view of aforesaid subsequent developments, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant now stands washed of. The bonafide of applicant is further established from the fact that prosecutrix has joined the applicant in present application inasmuch as the affidavit filed in support of present application has been sworn by the prosecutrix herself. Furthermore, on account of aforesaid development, parties have entered into compromise as is evident from the compromise, which is on record at Annexure- S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit. In view of above, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In case the impugned proceedings are allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. At this juncture reference be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, wherein the Apex Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that parties have solemnized marriage. Since the judgement is a short one therefore the same is reproduced in its entirety: ""1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix belongs to Valayar community, which is a most backward community in the State of Tamilnadu. He worksas a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him forcommitting rape under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was convicted after trial for committing the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur on 31.10.2018. The High Court, by an order dated 13.02.2019, upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that allegation against him was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her. He stated that, in fact, he married the prosecutrix and they have two children. 4. The appellant submitted that this Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ought to do complete justice and it could not be in the interest of justice to disturb the family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.

5. After hearing the matter for some time on 08th March, 2022, we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has categorically stated that she has two children and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life.

6. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix He expressed his apprehension that the said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him. is not legal.

7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with maternal uncle.

8. For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

9. In case, the appellant does not take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can move this Court for modification of this Order." In the present case also the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the applicant and from aforesaid wedlock, three children are born. It is thus apparent that applicant is the father, whereas the prosecutrix is mother of the children. As such, no objective can be achieved in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant, in case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. In view of the discussion made herein above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 2016 (State Vs. Rohit Rawat), under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station- Link Road, Ghaziabad, now pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.3- Ghaziabad shall stand quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Arshad ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad