High Court · 2025

parteis-2 and 3 i.e. first informant and the victim, respectively do not oppose the amendment application. They further submit that they have no objection to the amendment application filed by applicants being allowed by this Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel representing opposite parteis-2 and 3 i.e. first informant and the victim, respectively and upon perusal of record this court finds that amendment prayed for by applicants is formal in nature. Furthermore, since this Court is a court of record, therefore, the amendment prayed for by applicants is also essential in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. Accordingly, amendment application filed by applicants is liable to be allowed.

9. It is accordingly allowed.

10. Let necessary amendment in the cause title of this application be carried by the learned counsel for applicants. Order on the Memo of Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 41036 of

1. Heard Mr. Riyajuddin Ansari, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel representing opposite parteis-2 and 3 i.e. first informant and the victim, respectively.

2. Perused the record.

3.Applicants-Rajan @ Vicky And 3 Others, who are charge sheeted accused and also facing trial before court below, 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 graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the entire proceeding of the Special Trial No. 83 of 2014 (State v/s Keshav), under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and sections 3/4, 17 of POCSO Act, pending before the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), First, Deoria, arising out of the case crime no. 552 of 2014, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, in terms of the compromise dated 10.10.2024, and further quash the cognizance order dated 23.08.2014 and the summoning order dated

18.09.2024, passed by the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), First, Deoria, otherwise both the parties shall suffer irreparable loss and injury; and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of the Special Trial No. 83 of 2014 (State v/s Keshav), under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and sections 3/4, 17 of POCSO Act, pending before the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), First, Deoria, arising out of the case crime no. 552 of 2014, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, and also stay the effect and operation of the cognizance order dated 23.08.2014 as well as the summoning order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), First, Deoria, during the pendency of this application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in any terms."

4. 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 as have now emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicants cannot be sustained any further. As such, the present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicants submits that criminal prosecution of applicants commenced when the F.I.R. dated 22.04.2014 was lodged by the first informant/opposite party-2, Awadhesh Kumar in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 06.04.2014. The said F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No. 552 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366 and 504, Police Station-Kotwali, District- Deoria. In the aforementioned F.I.R. four persons namely 1. Rajan (Vikki), 2. Haresh 3. Keshav and 4. Geeta Devi.

6. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer ultimately submitted the charge sheet/ police report no. 393 dated 14.08.2014 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C whereby named accused- applicant-4, Keshav was charge-sheeted under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 17 POCSO Act. Another charge sheet/police report no. 8390 also dated 14.08.2014 was submitted by the Investigating Officer whereby applicant-1, Rajan @ Vicky was charge sheeted under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act whereas applicants 2 and 3 namely Haresh and Geeta Devi were charge sheeted under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 17 POCSO Act.

7. Learned counsel for applicants submits that during pendency of investigation of aforementioned case crime number, applicant-1, Rajan @ Vicky solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on

28.09.2014. Consequently, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant-1. By reason of above, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. From the aforesaid wedlock/cohabitation of applicant-1 and the prosecutrix as husband and wife two children i.e. a daughter Arusi and a son Yash Rajan Saha were born. Their birth certificates have been brought on record and are at pages 6 and 7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 19.02.2025 filed by applicants. As per the said documents, applicant-1, Rajan @ Vicky is shown as the father whereas the prosecutrix is shown as the mother.

8. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that in view of aforementioned subsequent developments, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant now stands washed of. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants.

9. In view of aforementioned subsequent developments, the parties have entered into a compromise. The original copy of the compromise entered into by the parties has been brought and is at page 143 of the paper book. Learned counsel for applicants with reference to the said compromise contends that in view of the subsequent developments that have taken place as noted herein above and the subsequent compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused/applicants is not only remote but also bleak. As such, no good ground exists to continue the criminal prosecution of applicants.

10. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicants that the first informant and the prosecutrix have put in appearance in present application by filing a short counter affidavit which has been sworn by both the opposite parties 2 and 3. With reference to above, the learned counsel for applicants submits that neither the first informant/opposite party-2 nor the prosecutrix/oppositre party-3 have opposed the present application. To the contrary they have supported the present application. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicants that in view of above, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. In case the criminal prosecution of applicants is allowed to continue a happy family shall stand broken. As such, the present application is liable to be allowed.

11. 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 prosecutrix was a child within the definition of the term child as defined in the POCSO Act 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 applicants. 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, the compromise entered into by the parties is of no significance. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the compromise entered into by the parties on 10.10.2024, copy of which is ion record as annexure 15 to the affidavit filed in support of present application, the impugned proceedings cannot be terminated. 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 applicants with reference to the record.

12. Mr. Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel representing opposite parties-2 and 3 i.e. first informant and the victim, respectively, submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. With reference to the material on record, it is urged by the learned counsel representing opposite parties-2 and 3 that it is an admitted fact to the parties that applicant-1, Rajan @ Vicky has solemnized marriage with the prosecutix/opposite party-3. From the aforesaid wedlock two children have been born as noted above. He also submits that the parties are now living together as a happy family. The first informant/opposite party-2 has also accepted the marriage of the prosecutrix (daughter) with applicant-1. It is then contended by the learned counsel representing opposite parties-2 and 3 that he cannot have any objection in case the present application is decided by this Court in the light of aforementioned facts.

13. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that during pendency of criminal prosecution of applicants, Rajan @ Vicky, applicant-1 solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix/opposite party-3. Consequently, by reason of above, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant-1. In view of above, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. There is nothing on record to show that proceedings have been initiated by the prosecutrix for declaration of her marriage with applicant-1 as void. Furthermore, from the aforesaid wedlock/cohabitation of applicant-1 and the prosecutrix/opposite party-3, two children i.e. a daughter Arusi and a son Yash Rajan Saha were born. As per Birth Certificates of aforesaid children, applicant-1, Rajan @ Vicky is shown as father whereas the prosecutrix/opposite party-3 is shown as mother. The first informant and the prosecutrix have filed a joint short counter affidavit wherein they have not opposed the present application. The first informant/opposite party-2 has accepted the marriage of the parties whereas the prosecutrix/opposite party-3 admits her marriage with applicant-1. In view of above, this Court finds that by reason of aforementioned subsequent developments, the criminality, if any committed by applicant shall now stand washed of. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.

14. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. The State By the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056. In aforesaid case, the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix even when the prosecutrix was a child as she was below 18 years of age on the date of marriage.

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. 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. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in case of Mafat Lal and another Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 433.

17. The ratio laid down by Apex Court in aforementioned judgements is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as applicant-1 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix/opposite party-3. From the aforesaid wedlock, two children have been born as already noted herein above. Applicant-1, Rajan @ Vicky is the father whereas the prosecutrix/opposite party-3 is the mother of the children born from the marriage of applicant-1 and the prosecutrix/opposite party-3. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. In case, the criminal prosecution of applicant is permitted to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.

18. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

19. It is accordingly allowed.

20. The entire proceedings in Special Trial No. 83 of 2014 (State Vs Keshav), under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4, 17 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria now pending before the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), First, Deoria, are hereby quashed.

21. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 YK YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

parteis-2 and 3 i.e. first informant and the victim, respectively do not oppose the amendment application. They further submit that they have no objection to the amendment application filed by applicants being allowed by this Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel representing opposite parteis-2 and 3 i.e. first informant and the victim, respectively and upon perusal of record this court finds that amendment prayed for by applicants is formal in nature. Furthermore, since this Court is a court of record, therefore, the amendment prayed for by applicants is also essential in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. Accordingly, amendment application filed by applicants is liable to be allowed.

9. It is accordingly allowed.

10. Let necessary amendment in the cause title of this application be carried by the learned counsel for applicants. Order on the Memo of Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 41036 of

1. Heard Mr. Riyajuddin Ansari, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel representing opposite parteis-2 and 3 i.e. first informant and the victim, respectively.

2. Perused the record.

3.Applicants-Rajan @ Vicky And 3 Others, who are charge sheeted accused and also facing trial before court below, 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 graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the entire proceeding of the Special Trial No. 83 of 2014 (State v/s Keshav), under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and sections 3/4, 17 of POCSO Act, pending before the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), First, Deoria, arising out of the case crime no. 552 of 2014, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, in terms of the compromise dated 10.10.2024, and further quash the cognizance order dated 23.08.2014 and the summoning order dated

18.09.2024, passed by the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), First, Deoria, otherwise both the parties shall suffer irreparable loss and injury; and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of the Special Trial No. 83 of 2014 (State v/s Keshav), under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and sections 3/4, 17 of POCSO Act, pending before the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), First, Deoria, arising out of the case crime no. 552 of 2014, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, and also stay the effect and operation of the cognizance order dated 23.08.2014 as well as the summoning order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), First, Deoria, during the pendency of this application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in any terms."

4. 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 as have now emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicants cannot be sustained any further. As such, the present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicants submits that criminal prosecution of applicants commenced when the F.I.R. dated 22.04.2014 was lodged by the first informant/opposite party-2, Awadhesh Kumar in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 06.04.2014. The said F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No. 552 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366 and 504, Police Station-Kotwali, District- Deoria. In the aforementioned F.I.R. four persons namely 1. Rajan (Vikki), 2. Haresh 3. Keshav and 4. Geeta Devi.

6. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer ultimately submitted the charge sheet/ police report no. 393 dated 14.08.2014 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C whereby named accused- applicant-4, Keshav was charge-sheeted under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 17 POCSO Act. Another charge sheet/police report no. 8390 also dated 14.08.2014 was submitted by the Investigating Officer whereby applicant-1, Rajan @ Vicky was charge sheeted under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act whereas applicants 2 and 3 namely Haresh and Geeta Devi were charge sheeted under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 17 POCSO Act.

7. Learned counsel for applicants submits that during pendency of investigation of aforementioned case crime number, applicant-1, Rajan @ Vicky solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on

28.09.2014. Consequently, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant-1. By reason of above, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. From the aforesaid wedlock/cohabitation of applicant-1 and the prosecutrix as husband and wife two children i.e. a daughter Arusi and a son Yash Rajan Saha were born. Their birth certificates have been brought on record and are at pages 6 and 7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 19.02.2025 filed by applicants. As per the said documents, applicant-1, Rajan @ Vicky is shown as the father whereas the prosecutrix is shown as the mother.

8. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that in view of aforementioned subsequent developments, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant now stands washed of. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants.

9. In view of aforementioned subsequent developments, the parties have entered into a compromise. The original copy of the compromise entered into by the parties has been brought and is at page 143 of the paper book. Learned counsel for applicants with reference to the said compromise contends that in view of the subsequent developments that have taken place as noted herein above and the subsequent compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused/applicants is not only remote but also bleak. As such, no good ground exists to continue the criminal prosecution of applicants.

10. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicants that the first informant and the prosecutrix have put in appearance in present application by filing a short counter affidavit which has been sworn by both the opposite parties 2 and 3. With reference to above, the learned counsel for applicants submits that neither the first informant/opposite party-2 nor the prosecutrix/oppositre party-3 have opposed the present application. To the contrary they have supported the present application. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicants that in view of above, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. In case the criminal prosecution of applicants is allowed to continue a happy family shall stand broken. As such, the present application is liable to be allowed.

11. 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 prosecutrix was a child within the definition of the term child as defined in the POCSO Act 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 applicants. 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, the compromise entered into by the parties is of no significance. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the compromise entered into by the parties on 10.10.2024, copy of which is ion record as annexure 15 to the affidavit filed in support of present application, the impugned proceedings cannot be terminated. 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 applicants with reference to the record.

12. Mr. Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel representing opposite parties-2 and 3 i.e. first informant and the victim, respectively, submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. With reference to the material on record, it is urged by the learned counsel representing opposite parties-2 and 3 that it is an admitted fact to the parties that applicant-1, Rajan @ Vicky has solemnized marriage with the prosecutix/opposite party-3. From the aforesaid wedlock two children have been born as noted above. He also submits that the parties are now living together as a happy family. The first informant/opposite party-2 has also accepted the marriage of the prosecutrix (daughter) with applicant-1. It is then contended by the learned counsel representing opposite parties-2 and 3 that he cannot have any objection in case the present application is decided by this Court in the light of aforementioned facts.

13. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that during pendency of criminal prosecution of applicants, Rajan @ Vicky, applicant-1 solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix/opposite party-3. Consequently, by reason of above, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant-1. In view of above, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. There is nothing on record to show that proceedings have been initiated by the prosecutrix for declaration of her marriage with applicant-1 as void. Furthermore, from the aforesaid wedlock/cohabitation of applicant-1 and the prosecutrix/opposite party-3, two children i.e. a daughter Arusi and a son Yash Rajan Saha were born. As per Birth Certificates of aforesaid children, applicant-1, Rajan @ Vicky is shown as father whereas the prosecutrix/opposite party-3 is shown as mother. The first informant and the prosecutrix have filed a joint short counter affidavit wherein they have not opposed the present application. The first informant/opposite party-2 has accepted the marriage of the parties whereas the prosecutrix/opposite party-3 admits her marriage with applicant-1. In view of above, this Court finds that by reason of aforementioned subsequent developments, the criminality, if any committed by applicant shall now stand washed of. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.

14. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. The State By the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056. In aforesaid case, the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix even when the prosecutrix was a child as she was below 18 years of age on the date of marriage.

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. 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. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in case of Mafat Lal and another Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 433.

17. The ratio laid down by Apex Court in aforementioned judgements is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as applicant-1 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix/opposite party-3. From the aforesaid wedlock, two children have been born as already noted herein above. Applicant-1, Rajan @ Vicky is the father whereas the prosecutrix/opposite party-3 is the mother of the children born from the marriage of applicant-1 and the prosecutrix/opposite party-3. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. In case, the criminal prosecution of applicant is permitted to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.

18. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

19. It is accordingly allowed.

20. The entire proceedings in Special Trial No. 83 of 2014 (State Vs Keshav), under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4, 17 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria now pending before the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), First, Deoria, are hereby quashed.

21. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 YK YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad