High Court · 2025

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below yet in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which have emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicant is liable to be quashed by this Court. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to the F.I.R. dated 19.05.2021 lodged by prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0078 of 2021 under Sections 376, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Obra, District Sonbhadra and giving rise to impugned criminal proceedings, applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. In view of above, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. Consequently, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. On account of cohabitation of the prosecutrix and applicant as husband and wife, a daughter namely Shrishti was born. Above facts have been admitted by the prosecutrix herself in her statement recorded before court below, copy of which is on record as Annexure-7 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that in view of the aforesaid 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 applicant. 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, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 does not oppose the present application. He submits that once the prosecutrix herself has entered into compromise with the accused/applicant then in that eventuality he cannot have any objection in case the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforesaid fact.

7. Mr. Amit Kumar Agrahari, the learned counsel representing first prosecutrix/ first on the other hand submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. In the submission of the learned counsel representing prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2, it is an admitted fact that during pendency of aforementioned proceedings, applicant has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. From the aforesaid wedlock, a daughter namely Shrishti was born. He therefore contends that in view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, he cannot have any objection in case the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts.

8. Be that as it may, having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Amit Kumar Agrahari, the learned counsel representing prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record this court finds that criminal prosecution of applicant commenced when the F.IR. dated 19.05.2021 was lodged by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0078 of 2021 under Sections 376, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Obra, District Sonbhadra. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged and during pendency of trial, applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. Consequently, by reason of above, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. As a result, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. On account of cohabitation of applicant and the prosecutrix as husband and wife, a daughter namely Shrishti was born. 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 applicant. In case, the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.

9. 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, wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that the accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. Since the judgement 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."

10. The ratio laid down in aforementioned case is squarely applicable as in present case also the accused has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. Out of the aforesaid wedlock, a daughter namely Shrishti was born. Therefore, applicant is now the father whereas the prosecutrix is the mother of the new born child. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant any further. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happly family shall stand broken.

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

12. It is accordingly allowed.

13. The entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 601 of 2021 (State Vs. Nand Kishor Bharti) arising out of Case Crime no. 0078 of 2021, under Sections 376, 504 L.P.C., Police Station-Obra, District-Sonbhadra, now pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. (C.A.W.), District Sonbhadra, are hereby quashed.

14. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 YK YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below yet in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which have emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicant is liable to be quashed by this Court. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to the F.I.R. dated 19.05.2021 lodged by prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0078 of 2021 under Sections 376, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Obra, District Sonbhadra and giving rise to impugned criminal proceedings, applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. In view of above, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. Consequently, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. On account of cohabitation of the prosecutrix and applicant as husband and wife, a daughter namely Shrishti was born. Above facts have been admitted by the prosecutrix herself in her statement recorded before court below, copy of which is on record as Annexure-7 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that in view of the aforesaid 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 applicant. 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, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 does not oppose the present application. He submits that once the prosecutrix herself has entered into compromise with the accused/applicant then in that eventuality he cannot have any objection in case the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforesaid fact.

7. Mr. Amit Kumar Agrahari, the learned counsel representing first prosecutrix/ first on the other hand submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. In the submission of the learned counsel representing prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2, it is an admitted fact that during pendency of aforementioned proceedings, applicant has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. From the aforesaid wedlock, a daughter namely Shrishti was born. He therefore contends that in view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, he cannot have any objection in case the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts.

8. Be that as it may, having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Amit Kumar Agrahari, the learned counsel representing prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record this court finds that criminal prosecution of applicant commenced when the F.IR. dated 19.05.2021 was lodged by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0078 of 2021 under Sections 376, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Obra, District Sonbhadra. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged and during pendency of trial, applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. Consequently, by reason of above, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. As a result, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. On account of cohabitation of applicant and the prosecutrix as husband and wife, a daughter namely Shrishti was born. 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 applicant. In case, the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.

9. 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, wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that the accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. Since the judgement 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."

10. The ratio laid down in aforementioned case is squarely applicable as in present case also the accused has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. Out of the aforesaid wedlock, a daughter namely Shrishti was born. Therefore, applicant is now the father whereas the prosecutrix is the mother of the new born child. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant any further. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happly family shall stand broken.

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

12. It is accordingly allowed.

13. The entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 601 of 2021 (State Vs. Nand Kishor Bharti) arising out of Case Crime no. 0078 of 2021, under Sections 376, 504 L.P.C., Police Station-Obra, District-Sonbhadra, now pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. (C.A.W.), District Sonbhadra, are hereby quashed.

14. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 YK YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad