High Court · 2025

1. As prayed, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead the victim as opposite party No.5 in the application during the course of the day.

2. Shri Ram Kalesh, learned counsel has filed short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.2/ complainant and his vakalatnama on behalf of newly impleaded opposite party No.5/ victim in the Court today, which are taken on record.

3. The applicant, opposite party No.2/ complainant and opposite party No.5/ victim are personally present before this Court and have been duly identified by their counsel.

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s), learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as Shri Ram Kalesh, learned counsel for the private opposite party No.2 & opposite party No.5/ victim and gone through the record.

5. The present application has been filed by the applicants for the following main relief(s):- "(i) To quash the charge sheet dated 02.07.2020 filed in FIR No.123 of 2019 lodged under section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act and section 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar, so far as it relates to the applicant on the basis of compromise deed dated 14.12.2024. (ii) It is further prayed that the entire criminal proceedings of SST POCSO No.215 of 2020 "State Vs. Rinku" in respect of the FIR No.123 of 2019 lodged under section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act and section 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar pending before the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, may be quashed on the basis of compromise deed dated 14.12.2024. (iii) Further, it is also prayed that during the pendency of the present petition, further proceedings of the SST POCSO No.215 of 2020 "State Vs. Rinku" in pursuant to the impugned charge sheet dated 02.07.2020 filed in FIR No. 123 of 2019 lodged under section 363, 366, 376 1.P.C., 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act and section 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar pending before the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar may kindly be stayed so far as it relates to the applicant on the basis of compromise deed dated 14.12.2024. (iv) It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present petition, the Learned Court below may be directed not to take any coercive measures against the applicant."

6. It is stated that applicant and opposite party No.5/ victim were having affair and opposite party No.5/ victim was inclined to marry him and both were known to each other long before from the date of lodging of FIR in issue.

7. It is further stated that as per the statement(s) of victim herself recorded during investigation in terms of Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., she on her own volition left her parental house and accompanied the applicant to Lucknow and thereafter solemnized marriage with applicant on 14.07.2019 at Arya Samaj Sector-H (Harsh Vihar Purania), Aliganj, Lucknow (Annexure No. 3 to this application).

8. It is further stated that the relationship of victim/ opposite party No.5 and applicant was not acknowledged/ accepted by the family members of opposite party No.5/ victim and therefore an FIR was lodged by the opposite party No.2, mother of opposite party No.5/ victim, on 14.07.2019 registered as FIR No. 0123/2019 making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. As per this FIR, the applicant enticed away the opposite party No.5/ victim aged about 16 years. However, upon alleged recovery, the opposite party No.5/ victim was medically examined and as per medical opinion, the victim at the relevant point of time was about 18-19 years old.

9. It is also stated that the date of birth of the opposite party No.5/ victim is mentioned in the marriage certificate as 01.01.2001 and accordingly, it is apparent that the opposite party No.5/ victim at the relevant point of time was major.

10. It is also stated that the date of birth of opposite party No.5/ victim indicated in the document relied upon by the prosecution i.e. school record was not correct as the prosecution is having no evidence to establish the age of the opposite party No.5/ victim recorded in the school record is correct and even if the same is taken on its face value then in view of the fact 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 opposite party no.5/ victim both.

11. It is also stated that presently the applicant and opposite party No.5/ victim are living as husband and wife alongwith their minor child.

12. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter, as otherwise, entire matrimonial life of applicant and opposite party No.5/ victim as also future of their minor child would be ruined.

13. The opposite party No.5/ victim present before this Court supported the case of the applicant.

14. 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, and also the observations made by Apex Court 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 given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.123 of 2019, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

15. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 G. Singh/ Anand ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. As prayed, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead the victim as opposite party No.5 in the application during the course of the day.

2. Shri Ram Kalesh, learned counsel has filed short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.2/ complainant and his vakalatnama on behalf of newly impleaded opposite party No.5/ victim in the Court today, which are taken on record.

3. The applicant, opposite party No.2/ complainant and opposite party No.5/ victim are personally present before this Court and have been duly identified by their counsel.

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s), learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as Shri Ram Kalesh, learned counsel for the private opposite party No.2 & opposite party No.5/ victim and gone through the record.

5. The present application has been filed by the applicants for the following main relief(s):- "(i) To quash the charge sheet dated 02.07.2020 filed in FIR No.123 of 2019 lodged under section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act and section 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar, so far as it relates to the applicant on the basis of compromise deed dated 14.12.2024. (ii) It is further prayed that the entire criminal proceedings of SST POCSO No.215 of 2020 "State Vs. Rinku" in respect of the FIR No.123 of 2019 lodged under section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act and section 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar pending before the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, may be quashed on the basis of compromise deed dated 14.12.2024. (iii) Further, it is also prayed that during the pendency of the present petition, further proceedings of the SST POCSO No.215 of 2020 "State Vs. Rinku" in pursuant to the impugned charge sheet dated 02.07.2020 filed in FIR No. 123 of 2019 lodged under section 363, 366, 376 1.P.C., 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act and section 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar pending before the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar may kindly be stayed so far as it relates to the applicant on the basis of compromise deed dated 14.12.2024. (iv) It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present petition, the Learned Court below may be directed not to take any coercive measures against the applicant."

6. It is stated that applicant and opposite party No.5/ victim were having affair and opposite party No.5/ victim was inclined to marry him and both were known to each other long before from the date of lodging of FIR in issue.

7. It is further stated that as per the statement(s) of victim herself recorded during investigation in terms of Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., she on her own volition left her parental house and accompanied the applicant to Lucknow and thereafter solemnized marriage with applicant on 14.07.2019 at Arya Samaj Sector-H (Harsh Vihar Purania), Aliganj, Lucknow (Annexure No. 3 to this application).

8. It is further stated that the relationship of victim/ opposite party No.5 and applicant was not acknowledged/ accepted by the family members of opposite party No.5/ victim and therefore an FIR was lodged by the opposite party No.2, mother of opposite party No.5/ victim, on 14.07.2019 registered as FIR No. 0123/2019 making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. As per this FIR, the applicant enticed away the opposite party No.5/ victim aged about 16 years. However, upon alleged recovery, the opposite party No.5/ victim was medically examined and as per medical opinion, the victim at the relevant point of time was about 18-19 years old.

9. It is also stated that the date of birth of the opposite party No.5/ victim is mentioned in the marriage certificate as 01.01.2001 and accordingly, it is apparent that the opposite party No.5/ victim at the relevant point of time was major.

10. It is also stated that the date of birth of opposite party No.5/ victim indicated in the document relied upon by the prosecution i.e. school record was not correct as the prosecution is having no evidence to establish the age of the opposite party No.5/ victim recorded in the school record is correct and even if the same is taken on its face value then in view of the fact 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 opposite party no.5/ victim both.

11. It is also stated that presently the applicant and opposite party No.5/ victim are living as husband and wife alongwith their minor child.

12. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter, as otherwise, entire matrimonial life of applicant and opposite party No.5/ victim as also future of their minor child would be ruined.

13. The opposite party No.5/ victim present before this Court supported the case of the applicant.

14. 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, and also the observations made by Apex Court 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 given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.123 of 2019, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

15. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 G. Singh/ Anand ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench