State of U.P v. Anuj Yadav, arising out of Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51563 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11570 of 2025 Applicant :- Anuj Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Kushwaha,Kritika Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anuj Kumar,G.A.,Rohit Nandan Singh Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Kushwaha, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Rohit Nandan Singh, the learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Anuj Yadav, who is a named and charge sheeted accused and also facing trial before court below, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer: " It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the application and quash the entire proceedings pending before the Special Judge, (S.C.S.T.) Ghaziabad, as S.S.T. No. 3007 of 2023, State of U.P. Vs. Anuj Yadav, arising out of Crime No. 246 of 2023, under Sections 376/507 I,P.C. and Section 3 (2) (V) of S.C/.S.T. Act, Police Station Madhuban, Bapudham, District Ghaziabad, in the light of compromise (annexure no. 7) along with affidavit filed by the applicant, to meet the ends of justice. It is, further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings in S.S.T. No. 3007 of 2023, State of U.P. Vs.
Facts
Anuj Yadav, arising out of Crime No. 246 of 2023, under Sections 376/507 I,P.C. and Section 3 (2) (V) of S.C/.S.T. Act, Police Station Madhuban, Bapudham, District Ghaziabad, including the summoning order dated 05.10.2023 pending before the Special Judge, (S.C./S.T.) Ghaziabad during the pendency of the present application, and/or to pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
Legal Reasoning
A.G.A Submits that 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. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Rohit Nandan Singh, the learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 has supported the present application. He submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. It is further submitted by the learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 that it is now an admitted fact that the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with applicant and since thereafter, the prosecutrix is residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. He also admits that the marriage of the parties has also been registered under the relevant Rules. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 that he cannot have any objection in case the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts. 10. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that the parties have solemnized marriage and they are living together as husband and wife. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Rohit Nandan Singh, the learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record this court finds that subsequent to the F.I.R. dated 14.07.2023 lodged by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and giving rise to present criminal proceedings, applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 08.07.2024 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Custom. Consequently, the prosecutrix is now the legally wedded wife of applicant. As such, they are living together as husband and wife. Marriage of the parties has also been registered under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. Once the marriage of the parties has been registered under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules 2017 then there is a statutory presumption regarding legal and valid marriage of the parties. In view of aforesaid subsequent developments, the criminality, if any, committed by accused/applicant now stands washed off. 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. As such, in case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family comprising of accused/applicant and the prosecutrix shall stand broken. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets. 12. The Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani (supra) and Mafat Lal and others (Supra) also quashed the proceedings against the accused on the grounds that the accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and the court cannot turn a blind eye to the said facts. Since the judgement rendered by Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani (supra) is a short one therefore the same is reproduced in its entirety: "Leave granted. 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 works as a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him for committing 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 Reason: 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. 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. 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.
Arguments
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused and also facing trial before court below in aforementioned Special Sessions Trial, however, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that 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. 6. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that criminal prosecution of applicant was set in motion when an F.I.R. dated 14.07.2023 was lodged by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0246 of 2023 under section 376, 507 I.P.C., Police Station Madhuban, Bapudham, District Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R. two persons namely Anuj Yadav (applicant herein) and the wife of Prakash Yadav have been nominated as named accused whereas an unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused.. However, subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R., applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 08.07.2024 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Custom. Consequently, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. By reason of above, the prosecutrix 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 U.P. Marriage Registration Rules 2017. Photocopy of the marriage registration certificate has been brought on record and is at page 53 of 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, therefore, there is a statutory presumption regarding legal and valid marriage of the parties. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that in view of the aforementioned subsequent developments, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant shall now stand washed off. As such, no useful purpose shall now be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. On the above conspectus, he therefore contends 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. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court. 7. Reference was then be made to the judgements of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. The State By the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and other Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 433 wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and court cannot turn a blind eye to the said fact. In the submission of learned counsel for applicant, the ratio laid down by Apex Court in aforementioned judgements is squarely applicable in the present case also. As such, no exception can be carve out in the case of present applicant with reference to the aforementioned judgements of Supreme Court inasmuch as applicant has also solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and the parties are happily living together. On the above conspectus the learned counsel for applicant submits that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court. 8. Per Contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. submits that since the applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant. Applicant has dislodged the modesty of the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2. As such, offence complained of against applicant is not only illegal but also immoral. Offence complained of against applicant is heinous and amounts to an offence against society. It is further submitted by the learned A.G.A. that in view of the prohibition issued by the Apex Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR OnLine 2019 SC 1716, that there can be no compromise in matters of rape and sexual assault. On the edifice of aforesaid submission, the learned
Decision
After hearing the matter for some time on 08 th 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. 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 is not legal. 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. 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. 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. 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." 13. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned judgement is squarely applicable to the present case as applicant has also solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. This Court cannot ignore the said facts. 14. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. 15. It is accordingly allowed. 16. The entire proceedings in Special Sessions Trial. No. 3007 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Anuj Yadav), arising out of Crime No. 246 of 2023, under Sections 376, 507 I,P.C. and Section 3 (2) (V) of S.C/.S.T. Act, Police Station Madhuban, Bapudham, District Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed. 17. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 YK Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad