Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia vs Sambhajirao

"Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet as well as further criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.405/2020, arising out of Case Crime No Under Section 252/2019 363, 366, 376 1.P.C read with Section 3/4 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Jahagirganj, District Ambedkar Nagar on the basis of the compromise pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge POCSO Act Ambedkar Nagar. It is also prayed that during the pendency of the instant petition under 482 Cr.P.C the further proceedings of the Session Trial No 405/2022 arising out of Case Crime No 252/2019 Under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C read with Section 3/4 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Jahagirganj, District Ambedkar Nagar on the basis of the compromise pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge POCSO Act Ambedkar Nagar may kindly stayed."

5. It is stated that being annoyed with the relationship of the applicant and opposite party no.2/victim, who on her own volition, left her parental house, the opposite party no.3 made a written complaint alleging therein that the applicant with the help of unknown person enticed away the victim, aged about 17 years, on

04.09.2019 at about 5:00 A.M. and the same also indicates that the opposite party no.2 eloped with Rs.40,000/- cash and jewellery of Rs.1,00,000/-. Based upon the allegations levelled in the written complaint an FIR No.0252 of 2019 was lodged under Sections 363, 366, 406 I.P.C. on 25.10.2019 indicating therein the date of occurrence as 04.09.2019.

6. It is further stated that during investigation Section 3/4 of POCSO Act were added.

7. It is further stated that the age of the opposite party no.4/victim indicated in the Medico Legal Report, Annexure No.4, does not support the story of prosecution. Statement(s) of the victim/opposite party no.2 recorded during investigation in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., annexed as Annexure No(s).3 and 6 also indicates that the victim has not supported the prosecution case. According to these statement(s) the victim called the applicant, who at the relevant point of time was at Delhi and thereafter on 04.09.2019 at about 5:00 A.M. the victim, on her own volition, left her parental house and accompanied the applicant to Delhi.

8. It is further stated that statement(s) of the victim also indicates that the applicant never asked the opposite party no.2/victim regarding to bring Rs.40,000/- and jewellery as indicated in the FIR and further, from these statement(s) it is evident that victim on her own volition solemnized marriage with the applicant.

9. It is further stated that according to the marksheet of Class-X, the date of birth of opposite party no.2/victim is 05.06.2002 and therefore at the time of lodging of FIR the victim was aged about 18 years and taking note of the same as also the Medico Legal Report it is apparent that the age of the victim indicated in the document on the basis of which the prosecution is placing reliance to attract the offence under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act is doubtful and there is no evidence with the prosecution to establish that the date of birth indicated in the said document was correctly mentioned.

10. It is further stated that as per medical opinion the victim at the relevant point of time, i.e. on 30.11.2019 was about 18-19 years.

11. In this view of the matter and in 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 opposite party no.2/victim both.

12. It is further stated that out of the wedlock of the applicant and opposite party no.2/victim, there is a minor child, who was born on

30.12.2023 and now the applicant, opposite party no.2/victim along with minor child are living happily under one roof. Copy of birth certificate of minor girl is annexed as Annexure No.11.

13. 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.2 as also future of their minor would be ruined.

14. The victim/opposite party no.2 present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune.

15. 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 opposite party no.2/victim and the applicant would be ruined as also the future of their minors would also 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.

16. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet as well as further criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.405/2020, arising out of Case Crime No Under Section 252/2019 363, 366, 376 1.P.C read with Section 3/4 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Jahagirganj, District Ambedkar Nagar on the basis of the compromise pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge POCSO Act Ambedkar Nagar. It is also prayed that during the pendency of the instant petition under 482 Cr.P.C the further proceedings of the Session Trial No 405/2022 arising out of Case Crime No 252/2019 Under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C read with Section 3/4 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Jahagirganj, District Ambedkar Nagar on the basis of the compromise pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge POCSO Act Ambedkar Nagar may kindly stayed."

5. It is stated that being annoyed with the relationship of the applicant and opposite party no.2/victim, who on her own volition, left her parental house, the opposite party no.3 made a written complaint alleging therein that the applicant with the help of unknown person enticed away the victim, aged about 17 years, on

04.09.2019 at about 5:00 A.M. and the same also indicates that the opposite party no.2 eloped with Rs.40,000/- cash and jewellery of Rs.1,00,000/-. Based upon the allegations levelled in the written complaint an FIR No.0252 of 2019 was lodged under Sections 363, 366, 406 I.P.C. on 25.10.2019 indicating therein the date of occurrence as 04.09.2019.

6. It is further stated that during investigation Section 3/4 of POCSO Act were added.

7. It is further stated that the age of the opposite party no.4/victim indicated in the Medico Legal Report, Annexure No.4, does not support the story of prosecution. Statement(s) of the victim/opposite party no.2 recorded during investigation in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., annexed as Annexure No(s).3 and 6 also indicates that the victim has not supported the prosecution case. According to these statement(s) the victim called the applicant, who at the relevant point of time was at Delhi and thereafter on 04.09.2019 at about 5:00 A.M. the victim, on her own volition, left her parental house and accompanied the applicant to Delhi.

8. It is further stated that statement(s) of the victim also indicates that the applicant never asked the opposite party no.2/victim regarding to bring Rs.40,000/- and jewellery as indicated in the FIR and further, from these statement(s) it is evident that victim on her own volition solemnized marriage with the applicant.

9. It is further stated that according to the marksheet of Class-X, the date of birth of opposite party no.2/victim is 05.06.2002 and therefore at the time of lodging of FIR the victim was aged about 18 years and taking note of the same as also the Medico Legal Report it is apparent that the age of the victim indicated in the document on the basis of which the prosecution is placing reliance to attract the offence under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act is doubtful and there is no evidence with the prosecution to establish that the date of birth indicated in the said document was correctly mentioned.

10. It is further stated that as per medical opinion the victim at the relevant point of time, i.e. on 30.11.2019 was about 18-19 years.

11. In this view of the matter and in 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 opposite party no.2/victim both.

12. It is further stated that out of the wedlock of the applicant and opposite party no.2/victim, there is a minor child, who was born on

30.12.2023 and now the applicant, opposite party no.2/victim along with minor child are living happily under one roof. Copy of birth certificate of minor girl is annexed as Annexure No.11.

13. 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.2 as also future of their minor would be ruined.

14. The victim/opposite party no.2 present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune.

15. 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 opposite party no.2/victim and the applicant would be ruined as also the future of their minors would also 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.

16. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench