State v. Patiraj Verma

Supplementary affidavit filed the applicant, joint affidavit filed by Shri Saurabh Mishra, Advocate who appeared for opposite party no. 3 and short counter affidavit of opposite party no.2/informant filed by Shri Shivom Pandey, Advocate in Court today are taken on record. The applicant and the victim/opposite party no. 3 are present before this Court, who have been identified by Shri Ankur Kumar Panday, Advocate and Shri Saurabh Mishra, Advocate, appearing for the said parties. Heard. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following main relief:- "To set aside the entire criminal proceedings of SST POCSO Case No. 46 of 2016 "State Versus Patiraj Verma" pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.1 / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No.108 of 2016, under sections-363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and section-3(1)12 of S.C/S.T. Act and section-3/4 of POCSO Act 2012, Police Station-Kotwali Tanda, District- Ambedkar Nagar alongwith summoning order dated 22.10.2016 and chargesheet dated 13.10.2016 so far as it relates to petitioner no.1 as contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this petition." It is stated that applicant and victim/opposite party no. 3 were having affair and victim/opposite party no. 3 was inclined to marry him and both were known to each other. It is further stated that the relationship of victim/opposite party no. 3 and applicant was not acknowledged/accepted by the opposite party no.2/father of the victim/opposite party no. 2 and therefore an FIR No. 0108 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366 IPC was lodged against the applicant. According to this FIR, the victim/opposite party no. 3, a minor, was enticed away by the applicant. It is further stated that in fact, the victim/opposite party no. 3, on her own volition, left house of her parents and accompanied the applicant to Pune where the applicant and the victim/opposite party no. 5 solemnized marriage and started living as husband and wife. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim recorded before the trial Court would indicate that the victim/opposite party no. 3 left her parental house and a bare perusal of the same would also indicate that at that point of time she indicated that her age is twenty years.The statement of the victim recorded before the trial Court is extracted herein-under :- कक हह मम शनच कब बजब कक हह। -03.10.03 कक समय 6 ससकय दद०-03.02.23 "पपडबलयय०-2:- मम ररजय उम लगभग 20 ससल पपतप ओमकसर दन० गसम दपपरप दवशपनपपर थसनस टसणडस जजलस अमबबडकरनगर नब सशपथ बयसन दकयस दक मम अनपसयदचत जसदत (कननजजयस) र। इस घटनस कक पथम सयचनस ररपपटर मबरब दपतस ओमकसर कब दसरस जलखसई गई थप घटनस ददनसक- 08.04.16 जलए बसहर गई थप मबरब गसरव कब पदतरसज पपत हह। मम खरगय नब मपझब बहलस फप सलस कब भगस लब गयस थस मबरप जनमदतजथ दद० पदतरसज कब ससथ अपनप मजर सब पपनस गई थप वहसर जसनब पर मपझकप पतस चलस दक मबरब दपतस मम अपनब पदत पदतरसज कब ससथ घर वसपस आ रहप थप। तप पपजलस मपकदमस जलखस ददयब हह। वसलब अकबरपपर मम पकड जलए पपजलस वसलब मबरस बयसन जलयब थब व एकस- रब व मबदडकल भप करसयब थब। नयसयसलय मम मबरस 164 सपआरपपसप० कस बयसन दजर हहआ थस। नयसयसलय कक अनपमदत सब बयसन 164 कस जलफसफस खपलस गयस तप पपदडतस कप उसकस फपटप व हसतसकर ददखसयस गयस तप वह कहह दक मबरस फपटप हह। व हसतसकर भप मबरस हम, और बयसन पढकर सपनसयस गयस तप कहस दक जप बयसन 164 कक हह। वह बयसन मम घटनस कब अनपससर ददयस थस। दकनतप इस समय पदतरसज कब ससथ पतनप कब रप मम रह रहप हह र। मबरब दप बचचब भप हह। बयसन डसलस गयस सरलग पतसवलप मम अरकपत कसगज सर0- 164 8 अ/7 मम शसरदस पबबलक गलसर इणटर कसलबज हजलस टसणडस अमबबडकरनगर मम ककस 6 जलखप हह। जजस पर पदशर क-3 . मम पवबश लप थप। जजसमम मबरप जनमदतजथ- 02.08.04 डसलस गयस जजसकप मम पहचसन करतप हह। यहप मबरस बयसन हह।" सपआरपपसप० पर पदशर क-2 व 14 मबरप हप हह। वरर 2013 Further submission is that the age of the victim/opposite party no. 3 indicated by the prosecution is not correct and to establish that the age indicated in the documents available with the prosecution is correct there is no material/evidence with the prosecution. It is in view of the age indicated by the victim/opposite party no. 3 before the trial Court i.e. 20 years as also the date of birth mentioned in the birth certificate, annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the application, which indicates her date of birth as fourteen years and in view of these facts as also that the applicant and the victim/opposite party no. 3 are living together as husband and wife, the benefit of the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including in the case(s) 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 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.3/victim both. 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 victim/opposite party no. 3 would be ruined. The victim/opposite party no. 3 present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune. Joint affidavit also supports the case of the applicant. Short counter affidavit of opposite party no.2/informant also supports the case of the applicant. 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 Case Crime No. 108 of 2016, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly 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 :- 10.3.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Supplementary affidavit filed the applicant, joint affidavit filed by Shri Saurabh Mishra, Advocate who appeared for opposite party no. 3 and short counter affidavit of opposite party no.2/informant filed by Shri Shivom Pandey, Advocate in Court today are taken on record. The applicant and the victim/opposite party no. 3 are present before this Court, who have been identified by Shri Ankur Kumar Panday, Advocate and Shri Saurabh Mishra, Advocate, appearing for the said parties. Heard. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following main relief:- "To set aside the entire criminal proceedings of SST POCSO Case No. 46 of 2016 "State Versus Patiraj Verma" pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.1 / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No.108 of 2016, under sections-363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and section-3(1)12 of S.C/S.T. Act and section-3/4 of POCSO Act 2012, Police Station-Kotwali Tanda, District- Ambedkar Nagar alongwith summoning order dated 22.10.2016 and chargesheet dated 13.10.2016 so far as it relates to petitioner no.1 as contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this petition." It is stated that applicant and victim/opposite party no. 3 were having affair and victim/opposite party no. 3 was inclined to marry him and both were known to each other. It is further stated that the relationship of victim/opposite party no. 3 and applicant was not acknowledged/accepted by the opposite party no.2/father of the victim/opposite party no. 2 and therefore an FIR No. 0108 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366 IPC was lodged against the applicant. According to this FIR, the victim/opposite party no. 3, a minor, was enticed away by the applicant. It is further stated that in fact, the victim/opposite party no. 3, on her own volition, left house of her parents and accompanied the applicant to Pune where the applicant and the victim/opposite party no. 5 solemnized marriage and started living as husband and wife. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim recorded before the trial Court would indicate that the victim/opposite party no. 3 left her parental house and a bare perusal of the same would also indicate that at that point of time she indicated that her age is twenty years.The statement of the victim recorded before the trial Court is extracted herein-under :- कक हह मम शनच कब बजब कक हह। -03.10.03 कक समय 6 ससकय दद०-03.02.23 "पपडबलयय०-2:- मम ररजय उम लगभग 20 ससल पपतप ओमकसर दन० गसम दपपरप दवशपनपपर थसनस टसणडस जजलस अमबबडकरनगर नब सशपथ बयसन दकयस दक मम अनपसयदचत जसदत (कननजजयस) र। इस घटनस कक पथम सयचनस ररपपटर मबरब दपतस ओमकसर कब दसरस जलखसई गई थप घटनस ददनसक- 08.04.16 जलए बसहर गई थप मबरब गसरव कब पदतरसज पपत हह। मम खरगय नब मपझब बहलस फप सलस कब भगस लब गयस थस मबरप जनमदतजथ दद० पदतरसज कब ससथ अपनप मजर सब पपनस गई थप वहसर जसनब पर मपझकप पतस चलस दक मबरब दपतस मम अपनब पदत पदतरसज कब ससथ घर वसपस आ रहप थप। तप पपजलस मपकदमस जलखस ददयब हह। वसलब अकबरपपर मम पकड जलए पपजलस वसलब मबरस बयसन जलयब थब व एकस- रब व मबदडकल भप करसयब थब। नयसयसलय मम मबरस 164 सपआरपपसप० कस बयसन दजर हहआ थस। नयसयसलय कक अनपमदत सब बयसन 164 कस जलफसफस खपलस गयस तप पपदडतस कप उसकस फपटप व हसतसकर ददखसयस गयस तप वह कहह दक मबरस फपटप हह। व हसतसकर भप मबरस हम, और बयसन पढकर सपनसयस गयस तप कहस दक जप बयसन 164 कक हह। वह बयसन मम घटनस कब अनपससर ददयस थस। दकनतप इस समय पदतरसज कब ससथ पतनप कब रप मम रह रहप हह र। मबरब दप बचचब भप हह। बयसन डसलस गयस सरलग पतसवलप मम अरकपत कसगज सर0- 164 8 अ/7 मम शसरदस पबबलक गलसर इणटर कसलबज हजलस टसणडस अमबबडकरनगर मम ककस 6 जलखप हह। जजस पर पदशर क-3 . मम पवबश लप थप। जजसमम मबरप जनमदतजथ- 02.08.04 डसलस गयस जजसकप मम पहचसन करतप हह। यहप मबरस बयसन हह।" सपआरपपसप० पर पदशर क-2 व 14 मबरप हप हह। वरर 2013 Further submission is that the age of the victim/opposite party no. 3 indicated by the prosecution is not correct and to establish that the age indicated in the documents available with the prosecution is correct there is no material/evidence with the prosecution. It is in view of the age indicated by the victim/opposite party no. 3 before the trial Court i.e. 20 years as also the date of birth mentioned in the birth certificate, annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the application, which indicates her date of birth as fourteen years and in view of these facts as also that the applicant and the victim/opposite party no. 3 are living together as husband and wife, the benefit of the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including in the case(s) 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 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.3/victim both. 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 victim/opposite party no. 3 would be ruined. The victim/opposite party no. 3 present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune. Joint affidavit also supports the case of the applicant. Short counter affidavit of opposite party no.2/informant also supports the case of the applicant. 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 Case Crime No. 108 of 2016, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly 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 :- 10.3.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench