High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Arjun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Shri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of Session Case No. 515 of 2023 (State vs. ARjun) arising out of Case Crime No. 408 of 2022 under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar including the Chrage-sheet dated 17.05.2023 as well as cognizance Order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Sant Kabir Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. of the incident dated 06.12.2022 was lodged on 08.12.2022 by the father of the victim in Case Crime No. 408 of 2022, under section 366, 363 I.P.C. with the allegation that applicant enticed and took away the daughter of informant on 06.12.2022. The girl was recovered and on the basis of her statement recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., Investigating Officer added section 376, I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act and submitted charge-sheet on 17.05.2023, upon which learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summoning order, which is assailed by means of the instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim had gone with the applicant at her own sweet will and both of them have solemnized marriage on 09.03.2023, which is evident from the statement of victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that applicant and victim had got their marriage registered before the Registrar, Marriages Dehradun, Compulsory Registration of Uttarakhand on 10.03.2023. On account of above, the victim started residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. Bonafide of the parties is also explicit from the fact that the marriage of parties has also been registered under the Uttarakhand Compulsory Registration of Marriage Act, 2010. Photocopy of the marriage registration certificate has been brought on record as Annexure no. 10 to the affidavit filed in support of the application.

5. In this background, learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the marriage of the applicant and victim was solemnized and the same has also been registered too to show their bonafide and they are living together as husband and wife, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant shall now stand washed of. On the above conspectus, learned counsel for the applicant submits that criminal prosecution of applicant is liable to be quashed. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. He therefore submits that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

6. Per Contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present application on the premise that the victim was minor on the date of occurrence, therefore, subsequent developments, if any, will not wipe out the criminality committed by the applicant as suggested by the learned counsel for applicant, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in the instant matter. 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.

7. Heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. It transpires from the record that notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 /first informant vide order dated 16.04.2024 and the same was also served upon him on

01.07.2024, however, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the informant. It seems that the opposite party no. 2/informant is not willing to agitate the criminal proceeding initiated against the applicant.

9. It is also evident that in the light of marriage having taken place between the victim and accused/ applicant, more particularly, the marriage being registered and a certificate being issued in accordance with law depicting the couple to be legally wedded husband and wife, it shows that the couple are leading a happy marital life. In the teeth of these facts, glaring enough they are, if the Court would shut its doors to the couple who are married and bringing up the child, the entire proceeding would result in miscarriage of justice. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of accused/applicant. On account of the facts as noted above, the chances of conviction of accused/applicant are now not only remote but also bleak in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. As such, in case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family comprising of accused/applicant and victim shall stand broken.

10. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgements of Supreme Court in the case of K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "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 the maternal uncle"

11. Also in the case of Mafat Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 6 SCC 589, the Supreme Court in paragraph no. 7 of the said judgement has held that :- "7. Before this Court, also the abductee has joined the accused as appellant No.2. Once again similar stand has been taken as was taken before the High Court. Both the appellants have filed separate affidavits. Appellant No.2 has specifically stated before the High Court as also before this Court that she had left her parental home on her own free volition. The appellants are married since December 2006 and have been living happily. They have also been blessed with a son in the year 2014 who would now be 8 years old. No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Section 363 IPC. In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will. Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the appellant no. 2 the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the appellant no.1 and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married appellant no.1 on her own free will without any influence being exercised by appellant no.1."

12. In Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana reported in 2024 Live Law (SC) 391, the hon'ble Apex Court in para 8 has held as follows:- "8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger."

13. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgements is squarely applicable to the present case as applicant has solemnized marriage with the victim and the marriage has also been registered, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed.

14. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is ALLOWED and the criminal proceeding against applicant in Session Case No. 515 of 2023 (State vs. ARjun) arising out of Case Crime No. 408 of 2022 under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar including the Chrage-sheet dated 17.05.2023 as well as cognizance Order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Sant Kabir Nagar are hereby QUASHED. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Bhanu BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Arjun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Shri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of Session Case No. 515 of 2023 (State vs. ARjun) arising out of Case Crime No. 408 of 2022 under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar including the Chrage-sheet dated 17.05.2023 as well as cognizance Order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Sant Kabir Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. of the incident dated 06.12.2022 was lodged on 08.12.2022 by the father of the victim in Case Crime No. 408 of 2022, under section 366, 363 I.P.C. with the allegation that applicant enticed and took away the daughter of informant on 06.12.2022. The girl was recovered and on the basis of her statement recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., Investigating Officer added section 376, I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act and submitted charge-sheet on 17.05.2023, upon which learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summoning order, which is assailed by means of the instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim had gone with the applicant at her own sweet will and both of them have solemnized marriage on 09.03.2023, which is evident from the statement of victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that applicant and victim had got their marriage registered before the Registrar, Marriages Dehradun, Compulsory Registration of Uttarakhand on 10.03.2023. On account of above, the victim started residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. Bonafide of the parties is also explicit from the fact that the marriage of parties has also been registered under the Uttarakhand Compulsory Registration of Marriage Act, 2010. Photocopy of the marriage registration certificate has been brought on record as Annexure no. 10 to the affidavit filed in support of the application.

5. In this background, learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the marriage of the applicant and victim was solemnized and the same has also been registered too to show their bonafide and they are living together as husband and wife, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant shall now stand washed of. On the above conspectus, learned counsel for the applicant submits that criminal prosecution of applicant is liable to be quashed. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. He therefore submits that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

6. Per Contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present application on the premise that the victim was minor on the date of occurrence, therefore, subsequent developments, if any, will not wipe out the criminality committed by the applicant as suggested by the learned counsel for applicant, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in the instant matter. 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.

7. Heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. It transpires from the record that notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 /first informant vide order dated 16.04.2024 and the same was also served upon him on

01.07.2024, however, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the informant. It seems that the opposite party no. 2/informant is not willing to agitate the criminal proceeding initiated against the applicant.

9. It is also evident that in the light of marriage having taken place between the victim and accused/ applicant, more particularly, the marriage being registered and a certificate being issued in accordance with law depicting the couple to be legally wedded husband and wife, it shows that the couple are leading a happy marital life. In the teeth of these facts, glaring enough they are, if the Court would shut its doors to the couple who are married and bringing up the child, the entire proceeding would result in miscarriage of justice. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of accused/applicant. On account of the facts as noted above, the chances of conviction of accused/applicant are now not only remote but also bleak in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. As such, in case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family comprising of accused/applicant and victim shall stand broken.

10. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgements of Supreme Court in the case of K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "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 the maternal uncle"

11. Also in the case of Mafat Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 6 SCC 589, the Supreme Court in paragraph no. 7 of the said judgement has held that :- "7. Before this Court, also the abductee has joined the accused as appellant No.2. Once again similar stand has been taken as was taken before the High Court. Both the appellants have filed separate affidavits. Appellant No.2 has specifically stated before the High Court as also before this Court that she had left her parental home on her own free volition. The appellants are married since December 2006 and have been living happily. They have also been blessed with a son in the year 2014 who would now be 8 years old. No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Section 363 IPC. In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will. Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the appellant no. 2 the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the appellant no.1 and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married appellant no.1 on her own free will without any influence being exercised by appellant no.1."

12. In Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana reported in 2024 Live Law (SC) 391, the hon'ble Apex Court in para 8 has held as follows:- "8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger."

13. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgements is squarely applicable to the present case as applicant has solemnized marriage with the victim and the marriage has also been registered, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed.

14. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is ALLOWED and the criminal proceeding against applicant in Session Case No. 515 of 2023 (State vs. ARjun) arising out of Case Crime No. 408 of 2022 under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar including the Chrage-sheet dated 17.05.2023 as well as cognizance Order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Sant Kabir Nagar are hereby QUASHED. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Bhanu BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad