Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia vs Sambhajirao
Case Details
Acts & Sections
3. The applicant has been identified by Shri Pawan Bhaskar, Advocate and victim/opposite party no.2 has been identified by Shri Himanshu Trigunait, Advocate.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
5. The instant application has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "I. Set aside and quash the impougned Summoning Order Dated 10.09.2024 (annexure no.1) in Case No.100652/2024 arising from FIR No.69 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bangarmau, Unnao against the applicant. II. It is also prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Charge sheet Dated 31.03.2024 (annexure-2) filed in FIR no.69 of 2024, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bangarmau, Unnao."
6. It is stated that according to School Leaving Certificate of the Composite Vidyalaya situated at Chhotapurwa, Village Ganj Muradabad, District Unnao (Annexure 11 to the instant application), the victim/opposite party no.2 was born on 11.07.2006 and in this view of the matter the victim/opposite party no.2 at the time of lodging the FIR, i.e. on 05.03.2024, which was lodged as FIR No.0069, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. at P.S. Bhagarmau, District Unnao was aged about 17 years. However, there is no proof available with the prosecution to establish that date of birth indicated in the School Leaving Certificate as also in the marksheet, i.e. 11.07.2006 is correct date of birth of the victim/opposite party no.2 and in this view of the facts of the instant case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 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.
7. In continuation it is stated that the applicant and victim/opposite party no.2 were in affair and the victim/opposite party no.2, on her own volition, left her house on 19.11.2023 at about 12:00 noon and thereafter met the applicant at Kanpur and on 24.01.2024 the applicant solemnized marriage with the victim/opposite party no.2. Now the victim/opposite party no.2 is pregnant, which is evident from the contents of short counter affidavit filed by the victim/opposite party no.2 herself.
8. It is stated that the facts pertaining to relationship of applicant and victim/opposite party no.2 as also that the victim on her own volition left her parental house situated at Chhotapurwa, District Unnao on 19.11.2023 at about 12:00 noon and reached Kanpur where she met the applicant, which is evident from the statement(s) of the victim recorded in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. These statements also indicate that after solemnizing the marriage, the applicant established relations with the victim/opposite party no.2.
9. It is further stated that in fact according to the victim/opposite party no.2 she was born on 01.01.2003, the date mentioned in the Aadhar Card and the date mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, the basis of the case of the prosecution to attract the offence under POCSO Act, is incorrect and in these circumstances, the indulgence of this Court is required else entire matrimonial life of applicant and victim/opposite party no.2 would be ruined.
10. 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 Suhana (supra) as also in 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 victim/opposite party no.2 and the applicant would 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 is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in issue, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.
11. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Anand/-
3. The applicant has been identified by Shri Pawan Bhaskar, Advocate and victim/opposite party no.2 has been identified by Shri Himanshu Trigunait, Advocate.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
5. The instant application has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "I. Set aside and quash the impougned Summoning Order Dated 10.09.2024 (annexure no.1) in Case No.100652/2024 arising from FIR No.69 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bangarmau, Unnao against the applicant. II. It is also prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Charge sheet Dated 31.03.2024 (annexure-2) filed in FIR no.69 of 2024, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bangarmau, Unnao."
6. It is stated that according to School Leaving Certificate of the Composite Vidyalaya situated at Chhotapurwa, Village Ganj Muradabad, District Unnao (Annexure 11 to the instant application), the victim/opposite party no.2 was born on 11.07.2006 and in this view of the matter the victim/opposite party no.2 at the time of lodging the FIR, i.e. on 05.03.2024, which was lodged as FIR No.0069, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. at P.S. Bhagarmau, District Unnao was aged about 17 years. However, there is no proof available with the prosecution to establish that date of birth indicated in the School Leaving Certificate as also in the marksheet, i.e. 11.07.2006 is correct date of birth of the victim/opposite party no.2 and in this view of the facts of the instant case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 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.
7. In continuation it is stated that the applicant and victim/opposite party no.2 were in affair and the victim/opposite party no.2, on her own volition, left her house on 19.11.2023 at about 12:00 noon and thereafter met the applicant at Kanpur and on 24.01.2024 the applicant solemnized marriage with the victim/opposite party no.2. Now the victim/opposite party no.2 is pregnant, which is evident from the contents of short counter affidavit filed by the victim/opposite party no.2 herself.
8. It is stated that the facts pertaining to relationship of applicant and victim/opposite party no.2 as also that the victim on her own volition left her parental house situated at Chhotapurwa, District Unnao on 19.11.2023 at about 12:00 noon and reached Kanpur where she met the applicant, which is evident from the statement(s) of the victim recorded in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. These statements also indicate that after solemnizing the marriage, the applicant established relations with the victim/opposite party no.2.
9. It is further stated that in fact according to the victim/opposite party no.2 she was born on 01.01.2003, the date mentioned in the Aadhar Card and the date mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, the basis of the case of the prosecution to attract the offence under POCSO Act, is incorrect and in these circumstances, the indulgence of this Court is required else entire matrimonial life of applicant and victim/opposite party no.2 would be ruined.
10. 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 Suhana (supra) as also in 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 victim/opposite party no.2 and the applicant would 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 is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in issue, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.
11. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Anand/-