High Court · 2025 on 05 Mar 2025

Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.35 of 2017; State Versus Pradeep, arising out of Case Crime No.8 of 2017, under sections- 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, relating to Police Station- Aliganj, District- Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, and impugned chargesheet no.29/17, dated 17.4.2017, submitted by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner in aforesaid case crime number, as contained in Annexure no.1 to this petition, in the interest of law and justice."

3. While pressing the instant application, it is stated that the daughter of the informant (hereinafter referred as "Victim"), according to the medical opinion/certificate dated 06.04.2017, proved by Dr. P.N.

Yadav (P.W.-4) was aged about 20 years when the FIR was lodged on

31.01.2017, registered as Case Crime No.0008/2017, at Police Station Aliganj, District-Ambedkar Nagar, making allegations against the applicant to attract the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.

4. It is stated that according to the FIR, the applicant enticed away the daughter of the informant, who is no more, and due to the said 2 reason, his wife, who is the mother of the victim, has been impleaded as the opposite party no.2.

5. It is further stated that after lodging of the FIR, the statement of the victim was recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. A perusal of these statements of the victim, which has been annexed as Annexure No(s). 3 & 4 to the present application, respectively, would show that the victim, on her own volition, left her parental house and accompanied the applicant to Jalalpur where both stayed about fifteen days and solemnized marriage on 05.01.2017 and thereafter, on

16.01.2017 both started to live at Ghaziabad and there, both stayed in rented house as husband and wife. From these statements, it is also evident that the date of birth recorded in the school records of victim is

08.04.2000 and in this view of the matter, victim, at the time of alleged incident, was aged about 17 years and 8 months.

6. It is further stated that out of wedlock of the applicant and the victim (daughter of opposite party No.2) there are two children and the applicant and the victim along with their children are residing happily under one roof and enjoying the matrimonial life as also discharging their duties as parents and this fact can be deduced from the statement of the opposite party no. 2 recorded before the trial court as P.W.1 and this statement further indicates that the opposite party no.2 has not supported the story of the prosecution. The statement of the opposite party no.2 on record is extracted herein-under: "दि(cid:2)नांक -09.12.2019 आज सा्ቌी गुदि(cid:21)या (cid:2)ेवी उ्቞ 60 व्ቧ(cid:29) लगभग पत्नी स्व0 ्ቦी रजिजतराम काय(cid:29)/पेशा ्ቇहणी दिनवाजिसनी ्ቇाम आशोपुर पकवा थाना अलीगंज जिजला अंबेडकर नगर को शपथ दि(cid:2)लाई गई तब उसने सशपथ बयान दिकया दिकः- इस मुक(cid:2)मे की पीदि(cid:21)ता कुमारी गाय्ቔी (cid:2)ेवी मेरी पु्ቔी है घटना के समय उसकी उ्቞ 16 व्ቧ(cid:29) थी दि(cid:2)नांक- 12-12-2016 को समय रात 10:00 बजे शौच के लिलए गई थी और वहां से लौटकर नहीं आई जब उसका पता नहीं चला तो मेरे पतित ने थाना अलीगंज में (cid:2)रखास्त (cid:2)ेकर घटना की रिरपोट(cid:29) (cid:2)ज(cid:29) कराई थी मेरे पतित रजिजतराम की मृत्यु आज से लगभग 5 माह पहले हो गई थी गवाह को उसका तहरीर कागज संख्या-04-अ/.... जो शादिमल दिमजिसल है दि(cid:2)खाया गया व पढ़ कर सुनाया गया उसने अपने पतित रजिजतराम के हस्ता्ቌर को (cid:2)ेखकर तस्(cid:2)ीक दिकया जिजस पर ्ቚ(cid:2)श(cid:29)-क-1 डाला गया मुलजिजम ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप जो मेरे गांव के बगल का है मेरी ल(cid:21)की को बहला फुसला कर ले गया था घटना के बाबत (cid:2)रोगा जी ने मेरा बयान लिलया था मुलजिजम ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप पहले से शा(cid:2)ीशु(cid:2)ा है मुझे इसकी जानकारी नहीं है घटना वाले दि(cid:2)न मैं अभिभयु्ሹ ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप या(cid:2)व को अपनी पु्ቔी 3 से बातचीत करते हुए नहीं (cid:2)ेखा था और ना ही मैंने उसको अपने घर के आसपास घूमते हुए (cid:2)ेखा था। इस स्तर पर गवाह को प्ቌ....... घोदि्ቧत करने की अभिभयोजन ्ቛारा ्ቚाथ(cid:29)ना की गई।"

7. It is further stated that the statement of the alleged victim recorded before the trial Court would also indicate that the applicant has not committed any crime. The statement of the victim, on record, is also extracted herein-under: "दि(cid:2)नांक -10.02.2021 गाय्ቔी या(cid:2)व पु्ቔी राजिजत राम उ्቞ लगभग 25 व्ቧ(cid:29) दिनवाजिसनी ्ቇाम आशापुर पकवा थाना अलीगंज जिजला अंबेडकर नगर ने सशपथ बयान दिकया दिकः- मेरा नाम गाय्ቔी है दि(cid:2)नांक 12-12-2016 को समय 10:00 बजे रात में मैं शौच के लिलए गई थी वहां से इस मुक(cid:2)मे के अभिभयु्ሹ ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप को बुलाई थी मैं उनके साथ दि(cid:2)्ቤी गई मैं अपने घर वालों को नहीं बताया मुक(cid:2)मा मेरे दिपताजी ने लिलखवाया है मेरे दिपता की मृत्यु-10 जून 2019 को हुई इस मुक(cid:2)मे के अभिभयु्ሹ ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप के साथ मैंने शा(cid:2)ी कर ली है मैं ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप के साथ पतित-पत्नी के रूप में रह रही हूं मेरी जन्म तितभिथ दि(cid:2)नांक-8.4.2000 है मैं हाई स्कूल पास हूं हाई स्कूल माक(cid:29)शीट के अनुसार मेरी जन्म तितभिथ 8.4.2000 है पीतिडता को 164 सीआरपीसी का बयान पढ़कर सुनाया गया जिजसको (cid:2)ेखकर पीतिडता ने कहा दिक यह बयान उसने मजिजस्ट्रेट के सम्ቌ दि(cid:2)या था जिजस पर मेरा फोटो है ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप के साथ में अपनी मजZ से गई थी उसने कोई जबर(cid:2)स्ती मेरे साथ नहीं की बयान 164 (cid:2)ंड ्ቚदि[या संदिहता पर ्ቚ(cid:2)श(cid:29)-क-2 डाला गया। इस स्तर पर अभिभयोजन ्ቛारा गवाह को प्ቌ ्ቖोही घोदि्ቧत करने की याचना की गई। अनुमतित (cid:2)ी जाती है।" ्ቛारा अभिभयोजन। पीदि(cid:21)ता को 161 का बयान पढ़कर सुनाया गया अपने बयान का समथ(cid:29)न दिकया उसने (cid:2)रोगा जी को यह बयान दि(cid:2)या था पीदि(cid:21)ता ने अपनी जन्मतितभिथ हाई स्कूल के अंक प्ቔ/्ቚवेश प्ቔ के अनुसार 08.04.2000 है घटना दि(cid:2)संबर 2016 की है पीदि(cid:21)ता को 164 सीआरपीसी का बयान पढ़कर सुनाया गया पीदि(cid:21)ता ने बयान का समथ(cid:29)न दिकया ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप के साथ में पतित-पत्नी के रूप में रह रही हूं ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप से (cid:2)ो ब्ሴे की है मुक(cid:2)मा मेरे दिपताजी ने लिलखाया था मेरे दिपताजी माताजी नहीं चाहते थे दिक मैं ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप के साथ रहूं यह कहना गलत है दिक ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप मुझे भाग कर ले गए तथा बुरा काम दिकया है यह भी कहना गलत है दिक मैं ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप के साथ पतित-पत्नी के रूप में रह रही हूं इसलिलए बात नही बता रही हूं। जिजरह बचाव प्ቌ। परिरवार रजिजस्टर ्ቚतितलिलदिप व्ቧ(cid:29) 2001-2002 के अनुसार 6 व्ቧ(cid:29) की उ्቞ लिलखी गई है जो मेरी उ्቞ के संबंध में है घटना के दि(cid:2)न जब मैं ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप के साथ पक(cid:21)ी गई तो मेरे माता-दिपता ने मुझे मारपीट कर घर से दिनकाल दि(cid:2)या घटना से एक महीने बा(cid:2) तक हम लोग गोिሷव(cid:2) साहब जलालपुर अकबरपुर रहे उसके हम गाजिजयाबा(cid:2) गए 15 जनवरी 2017 को हमने शा(cid:2)ी दिकया पुलिलस के ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप के घर वालों को परेशान करने लगी तब हम लोग वापस आ गए ्ቚ(cid:2)ीप ने मेरे साथ जोर जबर(cid:2)स्ती जबर(cid:2)स्ती कभी नही की घटना के समय मेरी उ्቞ 20-21 साल थी। बयान मेरे ्ቛारा लिलखा गया। दि(cid:2)नांक- 10.02.2021 ह० -- गाय्ቔी ह० अ० "

8. It is stated that the FIR which is the basis of the pending criminal proceedings was lodged by the husband of the opposite party no. 2 (father of the alleged victim ) only on account of the fact that he was not recognizng the relationship of the applicant and the victim. 4

9. It is further stated that taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the age of the victim, date of birth indicated in the school records i.e. 08.04.2000, which is not correct, the indulgence in the matter is required, else the matrimonial life of the applicant and the victim, as also the future of the children would be ruined.

10. It is also stated that in so far as the date of birth is concerned, i.e.

08.04.2000, the same is liable to be ignored in view of the fact that as per medical opinion the victim at the relevant point of time was found to be about twenty years old and in the copy of Parivar register filed before the trial court of the year 2001-2002 her age has been shown as 6 years and to establish that the date of birth indicated in the document available with the prosecution is correct, there is no material/evidence with the prosecution and further that the prosecution has not put any question to the PW 1 with regard to the date of birth of the victim entered into the school records and as such in these circumstances, as also the fact that the applicant and the victim are living together as husband and wife with their children, 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 victim and children.

11. 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 and the future of their children would be ruined. 5

12. 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, the 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 of 6 Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2017 (State Versus Pradeep), arising out of Case Crime No.8 of 2017, under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, relating to Police Station- Aliganj, District- Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, quoted above, are liable to be quashed.

13. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. The proceedings in issue, as quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

14. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench