Jai Singh @ Raju v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashank Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the B.W. order dated

21.09.2024 summoning order dated 29.03.2022 in Crl. Case No. 241 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2021 under sections- 363 and 376 IPC and 3/4 of Pocso Act P.S. Dargah Sharif District Bahraich and chargesheet no. 01 of 2022 dated

02.01.2022. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the first information report has been lodged under some misconception and now, the parties have settled their dispute and have performed marriage and are living as husband and wife. He submits that allowing the criminal proceedings would amount to harassment of the applicant and their marital life of the applicant as well as the alleged victim would be ruined, thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the contention of counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties have settled their disputes and have performed the marriage, thus, criminal proceedings against the applicant 2 A482 No. 5910 of 2025 may be dropped. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid, but he has no objection if the parties have performed marriage and settled their life. In view of the aforesaid submissions and coming to the truthfulness of the incident, the applicant and the victim/opposite party no. 3 are directed to remain present before this Court so that their statement could be recorded. List/put up this matter on 03.09.2025 at 2:15 pm. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings of Case No. 241 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2021 under sections- 363 and 376 IPC and 3/4 of Pocso Act P.S. Dargah Sharif District Bahraich shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned." In-compliance of the aforesaid order, the applicant, Jai Singh@Raju and the opposite party no. 3, Bitti Rani, are present before this Court and both have been identified by their respective counsels. On query being, the opposite party no.3/Bitti Rani has replied that she was major at the time of the incident and under some misconception, the first information report has been lodged by her mother and the applicant has committed no offense and further submitted that she is residing with the applicant and there is one year child from their wedlock. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant and opposite party no. 3 are living as husband and wife as they have performed marriage and there is one-year-old child from their wedlock and allowing the further criminal proceeding would amount to harassment and abuse of the process of law as there would be no productivity of the trial. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated

03.02.2021 and has placed reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 and the same are extracted hereunder:- "9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court 3 A482 No. 5910 of 2025 shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment aforesaid, thus, submission is that the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 3 has supported the version of counsel for the applicant and submits that the victim has performed marriage with the applicant, therefore, the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be dropped. Learned AGA appearing for the State though, has opposed on merits, but he has no objection if the parties are major and they have decided to live with each other after performing the marriage. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, particularly, the statement of the parties that they have performed marriage and they are living as husband and wife peacefully without any further dispute. The case of the present applicant is also covered with the ratio of Judgment of the Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another (Supra) as the applicant and the alleged prosecutrix have performed their marriage and they are living as husband and wife. Resultantly, the criminal proceedings of Case No. 241 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2021 under sections- 363 and 376 IPC and 3/4 of Pocso Act P.S. Dargah Sharif District Bahraich, summoning order dated

29.03.2022 and B.W. dated 21.09.2024 are hereby quashed. Consequences shall be followed. Consigned to record. 4 A482 No. 5910 of 2025 The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed accordingly. The personal appearance of the applicant, namely, Jai Singh@Raju and opposite party no.3, namely, Bitti Rani is hereby exempted. September 3, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashank Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the B.W. order dated

21.09.2024 summoning order dated 29.03.2022 in Crl. Case No. 241 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2021 under sections- 363 and 376 IPC and 3/4 of Pocso Act P.S. Dargah Sharif District Bahraich and chargesheet no. 01 of 2022 dated

02.01.2022. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the first information report has been lodged under some misconception and now, the parties have settled their dispute and have performed marriage and are living as husband and wife. He submits that allowing the criminal proceedings would amount to harassment of the applicant and their marital life of the applicant as well as the alleged victim would be ruined, thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the contention of counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties have settled their disputes and have performed the marriage, thus, criminal proceedings against the applicant 2 A482 No. 5910 of 2025 may be dropped. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid, but he has no objection if the parties have performed marriage and settled their life. In view of the aforesaid submissions and coming to the truthfulness of the incident, the applicant and the victim/opposite party no. 3 are directed to remain present before this Court so that their statement could be recorded. List/put up this matter on 03.09.2025 at 2:15 pm. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings of Case No. 241 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2021 under sections- 363 and 376 IPC and 3/4 of Pocso Act P.S. Dargah Sharif District Bahraich shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned." In-compliance of the aforesaid order, the applicant, Jai Singh@Raju and the opposite party no. 3, Bitti Rani, are present before this Court and both have been identified by their respective counsels. On query being, the opposite party no.3/Bitti Rani has replied that she was major at the time of the incident and under some misconception, the first information report has been lodged by her mother and the applicant has committed no offense and further submitted that she is residing with the applicant and there is one year child from their wedlock. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant and opposite party no. 3 are living as husband and wife as they have performed marriage and there is one-year-old child from their wedlock and allowing the further criminal proceeding would amount to harassment and abuse of the process of law as there would be no productivity of the trial. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated

03.02.2021 and has placed reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 and the same are extracted hereunder:- "9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court 3 A482 No. 5910 of 2025 shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment aforesaid, thus, submission is that the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 3 has supported the version of counsel for the applicant and submits that the victim has performed marriage with the applicant, therefore, the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be dropped. Learned AGA appearing for the State though, has opposed on merits, but he has no objection if the parties are major and they have decided to live with each other after performing the marriage. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, particularly, the statement of the parties that they have performed marriage and they are living as husband and wife peacefully without any further dispute. The case of the present applicant is also covered with the ratio of Judgment of the Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another (Supra) as the applicant and the alleged prosecutrix have performed their marriage and they are living as husband and wife. Resultantly, the criminal proceedings of Case No. 241 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2021 under sections- 363 and 376 IPC and 3/4 of Pocso Act P.S. Dargah Sharif District Bahraich, summoning order dated

29.03.2022 and B.W. dated 21.09.2024 are hereby quashed. Consequences shall be followed. Consigned to record. 4 A482 No. 5910 of 2025 The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed accordingly. The personal appearance of the applicant, namely, Jai Singh@Raju and opposite party no.3, namely, Bitti Rani is hereby exempted. September 3, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench