High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P., Sri Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the victim/opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.5/informant (brother of the victim) and gone through the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief(s):- "Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire proceedings of the case, running as Sessions Trial No.856 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.357/2017, U/s 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow, pending before the Learned Special Judge, POCSO- 2, Lucknow, in which the police has submitted a charge sheet (dated 16.07.2018) of which cognizance was taken by the Learned Trial Court on 18.09.2018. (The certified and its typed copy of First Information Report, Chargesheet and Cognizance order are collectively annexed herewith as Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3 this Petition.)" Applicant/Amber Lal and opposite party No.2/victim are present before this Court. The applicant has been identified by Sri Ashish Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and victim/opposite party No.2 has been identified by Sri Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma, Advocate. It is stated that applicant and victim/opposite party No.2 were in affair and victim/opposite party No.2 was inclined to marry the applicant. It is further stated that the relationship of victim/opposite party No. 2 and applicant was not acknowledged/accepted by the family members of victim/opposite party No.2 and therefore an FIR was lodged by the brother of the victim/opposite party No.2, on 20.08.2017, registered as FIR No.0357/2017, making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. However, during the investigation Section 376 I.P.C. and Section3/4 of the POCSO Act were added. As per version of the F.I.R., the informant informed the Police that the victim, who was 15 years old at the time of incident, was enticed away by the applicant and his companion on 19.08.2017. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since both, the applicant and the victim/opposite party No.2 have performed marriage and they are living together under one roof and that the applicant and the opposite party No.2 are having two children and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings of the trial court. Copy of the Aadhar Card(s) of the children, annexed as Annexure No.5 to the application, and other documents on records indicate these facts. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that as per statement of the victim/opposite party No.2 recorded during investigation, the victim was 20 years of age at the time of incident. It has also submitted that the parties, applicant, victim and the informant have entered into a compromise, which has been annexed as Annexure No.7 to the application, according to which the applicant shall keep the victim and the children with full dignity and respect and the same also indicates that the first party, which includes opposite party No.5/informant (brother of the victim) do not want to pursue the criminal proceedings of the F.I.R. in issue and in this view of matter also the proceedings in issue are liable to be quashed. case, It is also stated that in so far as age of victim/opposite party No. 2 relied by the prosecution is concerned, the same is not correct and there is no evidence to support/establish the age of the victim relied by the prosecution and in view of the facts of the instant the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including in the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of the benefit SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397, shall be extended in favour of the applicant and the victim/opposite party no.2 both. It is also stated that presently the applicant and victim/opposite party No. 2 are living as husband and wife alongwith their minors namely Avanish, aged about 5 years and Pihu, aged about 2 years, which can be deduced from the facts pleaded in the present application. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter, else, entire matrimonial life of applicant and victim/opposite party No. 2 as also future of their minors would be ruined. The victim/opposite party No. 2 present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra), Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice as also the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in the ends of substantial justice, the proceedings based upon the settlement between the parties can be quashed, as also taking note of the nature of dispute/crime and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of opposite party No. 2/victim and the applicant would be ruined as also the future of their minors would also be ruined, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.856 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.357/2017, U/s 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow, pending before the Learned Special Judge, POCSO-2, Lucknow, as quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P., Sri Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the victim/opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.5/informant (brother of the victim) and gone through the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief(s):- "Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire proceedings of the case, running as Sessions Trial No.856 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.357/2017, U/s 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow, pending before the Learned Special Judge, POCSO- 2, Lucknow, in which the police has submitted a charge sheet (dated 16.07.2018) of which cognizance was taken by the Learned Trial Court on 18.09.2018. (The certified and its typed copy of First Information Report, Chargesheet and Cognizance order are collectively annexed herewith as Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3 this Petition.)" Applicant/Amber Lal and opposite party No.2/victim are present before this Court. The applicant has been identified by Sri Ashish Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and victim/opposite party No.2 has been identified by Sri Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma, Advocate. It is stated that applicant and victim/opposite party No.2 were in affair and victim/opposite party No.2 was inclined to marry the applicant. It is further stated that the relationship of victim/opposite party No. 2 and applicant was not acknowledged/accepted by the family members of victim/opposite party No.2 and therefore an FIR was lodged by the brother of the victim/opposite party No.2, on 20.08.2017, registered as FIR No.0357/2017, making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. However, during the investigation Section 376 I.P.C. and Section3/4 of the POCSO Act were added. As per version of the F.I.R., the informant informed the Police that the victim, who was 15 years old at the time of incident, was enticed away by the applicant and his companion on 19.08.2017. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since both, the applicant and the victim/opposite party No.2 have performed marriage and they are living together under one roof and that the applicant and the opposite party No.2 are having two children and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings of the trial court. Copy of the Aadhar Card(s) of the children, annexed as Annexure No.5 to the application, and other documents on records indicate these facts. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that as per statement of the victim/opposite party No.2 recorded during investigation, the victim was 20 years of age at the time of incident. It has also submitted that the parties, applicant, victim and the informant have entered into a compromise, which has been annexed as Annexure No.7 to the application, according to which the applicant shall keep the victim and the children with full dignity and respect and the same also indicates that the first party, which includes opposite party No.5/informant (brother of the victim) do not want to pursue the criminal proceedings of the F.I.R. in issue and in this view of matter also the proceedings in issue are liable to be quashed. case, It is also stated that in so far as age of victim/opposite party No. 2 relied by the prosecution is concerned, the same is not correct and there is no evidence to support/establish the age of the victim relied by the prosecution and in view of the facts of the instant the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including in the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of the benefit SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397, shall be extended in favour of the applicant and the victim/opposite party no.2 both. It is also stated that presently the applicant and victim/opposite party No. 2 are living as husband and wife alongwith their minors namely Avanish, aged about 5 years and Pihu, aged about 2 years, which can be deduced from the facts pleaded in the present application. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter, else, entire matrimonial life of applicant and victim/opposite party No. 2 as also future of their minors would be ruined. The victim/opposite party No. 2 present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra), Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice as also the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in the ends of substantial justice, the proceedings based upon the settlement between the parties can be quashed, as also taking note of the nature of dispute/crime and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of opposite party No. 2/victim and the applicant would be ruined as also the future of their minors would also be ruined, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.856 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.357/2017, U/s 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow, pending before the Learned Special Judge, POCSO-2, Lucknow, as quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench