State v. Sandeep Shahi and others), Police Station
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30476 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23932 of 2024 Applicant :- Sandeep Shahi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Shukla Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Yadav, the learned counsel representing prosecutrix/opposite party- 5. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicants-Sandeep Shahi And 2 Others, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present application and quash the impugned Charge-Sheet dated 17.11.2021 as Charge-Sheet No.511 of 2021, submitted in Case Crime No.621 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act against the applicant no.1 and under Section 506 I.P.C. against the applicant nos.2 and 3, Police Station-Cantt., District- Gorakhpur, including the entire proceeding of Session Trial No.2532 of 2021 (State Vs. Sandeep Shahi and others), Police Station-Cantt., District- Gorakhpur as well as impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 25.11.2021, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.2, Gorakhpur, on the basis of compromise dated 03.02.2024, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings of the Charge-Sheet dated 17.11.2021 as Charge-Sheet No.511 of 2021, submitted in Case Crime No.621 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act against the applicant no.1 and under Section 506 I.P.C. against the applicant nos.2 and 3, Police Station- Cantt., District-Gorakhpur, including the entire proceeding of Session Trial No.2532 of 2021 (State Vs. Sandeep Shahi and others), Police Station- Cantt., District-Gorakhpur as well as impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 25.11.2021, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.2, Gorakhpur. During the pendency of the present application. Otherwise applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
Legal Reasoning
4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicants submits that due to inadvertent, the requisite amendment in the cause title of this application could not be carried out by him in compliance of order dated 24.02.2025. He therefore seeks one more indulgence to comply with the order dated 24.02.2025. 5. Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicants is bonafide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A. Accordingly, it is allowed. 6. Let necessary amendment in the cause title of this application be carried out by the learned counsel for applicants during course of the day. 7. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. submits that notice of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been served upon first informant/opposite party-2 on 16.02.2025. However, in spite of service of notice, neither any counter affidavit has been filed by first informant/opposite party-2 nor anyone has put in appearance on his behalf to oppose this application even in revised call. 8. Learned counsel for applicants submits that though applicants are named and charge-sheeted accused and also facing trial before court below in aforementioned Sessions Trial, however, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that have now emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicants cannot be sustained. As such, present application is liable to be allowed. 9. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicants submits that criminal prosecution of applicant commenced when the F.I.R. dated 26.09.2021 was lodged by the first informant/opposite party-2, Priti Shahi (mother of the prosecutrix), which was registered as Case Crime No.0621 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Cantt., District-Gorakhpur. However, subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R., applicant-1 solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix/opposite party-5 on 30.05.2023. By reason of above, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. On account of above, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. Bonafide of the parties is further evident from the fact that the marriage of parties has also been registered under the provisions of U.P. Marriage Registration Rules 2017. Photocopy of the marriage registration certificate has been brought on record and is at page 68 of the paper book. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that since the marriage of the parties has been registered, therefore, there is a statutory presumption regarding legal and valid marriage of the parties. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that in view of the aforementioned subsequent developments that have taken place, the criminality, if any, committed by applicants shall now stand washed of. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. In view of above, in case the criminal prosecution of applicants is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. He therefore submits that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court. 10. Per Contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. He submits that since the prosecutrix was a child within the meaning of term child as defined in the POCSO Act on the date of occurrence, therefore, the subsequent developments, if any, will not wipe out the criminality committed by accused/applicanta. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Shukla Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Yadav, the learned counsel representing prosecutrix/opposite party-5, submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. In the submission of the learned counsel representing prosecutrix/opposite party-5, it is an admitted fact that the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with applicant-1 and since thereafter, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. It is thus urged by the learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/opposite party-5 that he cannot have any objection in case the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances. 12. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that applicant-1 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. Consequently, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. In view of above, parties have entered into a compromise on 03.02.2024. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Shukla Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Yadav, the learned counsel representing prosecutrix/opposite party-5 and upon perusal of record this court finds that criminal prosecution of applicant commenced when the F.I.R. dated 26.09.2021 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2. However, subsequent to the F.I.R., the applicant-1 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 30.05.2023. By reason of above, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant-1. Consequently, prosecutrix is residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. Bonafide of the parties is further evident from the fact that the 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. therefore, there is a statutory presumption in favour of applicant and the prosecutrix that their marriage is valid and legal. Bonafide of the parties is further evident from the fact that the prosecutrix has joined the present criminal proceeding as she put in appearance as opposite party-5. The prosecutrix has fully supported the present application. In view of aforesaid subsequent developments, the criminality, if any, committed by accused/applicants now stands washed of. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of accused/applicants. On account of the facts as noted above, the chances of conviction of accused/applicants 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 applicants is allowed to continue, a happy family comprising of accused/applicants and the prosecutrix shall stand broken. 14. At this juncture, reference 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 another Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 433. In the aforesaid judgements, the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. 15. 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.
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." 16. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned judgementss is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case inasmuch as applicant-1 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. Consequently, the prosecutrix is residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. In view of above, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. 17. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. 18. It is accordingly allowed. 19. The entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No.2532 of 2021 (State Vs. Sandeep Shahi and others) arising out of Case Crime No.621 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act against the applicant no.1 and under Section 506 I.P.C. against the applicant nos.2 and 3, Police Station- Cantt., District-Gorakhpur, now pending in the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.2, Gorakhpur are hereby quashed. 20. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 YK Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad