Ajay Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And

behalf of respondent no. 3 filed today by Sri Prashant Dubey is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. This revision has been filed with a payer to admit and allow the revision after setting aside the order dated 6.8.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Created Court POCSO Act Court No. 15 District Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2021 (Nattha Singh Vs. State f U.P. and others) Crime No. 345 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. P.S.- Rampur Kala, District- 2 A482 No. 7406 of 2025 Sitapur. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that marriage of daughter sister of respondent no. 2, namely, Soni Devi @ Sonika Kumari was solemnized with the elder brother of applicant, namely, Luvlesh. He further submits that the prosecutrix was in love with the applicant and their relation was not accepted by the respondent no. 2. He also submits that the date of birth of respondent no. 3 is 1.1.2000, which is duly entered into "Kutumb Register". He further submits that the applicant and respondent no. 3 entered into marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir Sector-H Harsh Vihar, Puraniya, Aliganj, Lucknow, thereafter the marriage was registered on 24.1.2020. He further submits that on the basis of concocted facts F.I.R. No. 345 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. P.S.- Rampur Kala, District- Sitapur was lodged by the respondent no. 2 against the applicant with the allegation that younger brother of son in law enticed away his daughter and he further submits that the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. She categorically stated that she is major and she entered into marriage with the applicant and wanted to live with him. He also submitted that after marriage she conceived and delivered a child on 27.9.2021. He also submits that on the basis of documents produced by the respondent no. 2 prosecutrix was declared minor thereafter Child Welfare Committee passed order dated 4.1.2021 and custody was given to her elder sister, namely, Soni Devi, wife of Luvlesh and thereafter Criminal Appeal No. 22/2021 (Nattha Singh Vs. State f U.P. and others) was filed before the Special Judge and the appeal was allowed on 6.8.2021 and order dated 4.1.2021 for giving 'supurdagi' in favour of elder sister was set aside with a direction to decide afresh. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prosecutrix is enjoying her life with her newly born child and the applicant at the house of her elder sister. He further submits that as per radiological report she was found aged about 20 years. The radiological report issued by C.M.O. ,Sitapur has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. He also submitted that the marriage of the applicant and prosecutrix is not disputed and as per the the provision of Section 6 (C) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 husband is natural guardian of minor wife but in the present case prosecutrix is major as per "Kutumb Register" and radiological examination In such circumstances kind indulgence of this Court is necessary. Learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the applicant opposed the prayer of revisionist and submit that there is no illegality in the order passed in the appeal and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 3 A482 No. 7406 of 2025 After considering the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, it is evident that in the photocopy of the "Kutumb Register" the age of the respondent no. 3 is 1.1.2000 and as per radiological report the prosecutrix is aged about 20 years in the Month of December, 2020 and it is also not disputed that out of wedlock of applicant and prosecutrix one child was born on 27.9.2021 and she is living with her elder sister and the applicant. The matter requires consideration. List this case on 22.11.2021. In the meantime, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant may file counter affidavit. Till the next date of listing, impugned order shall remain stayed." It is categorically observed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court that as per the Kutumb Register, the date of birth of the prosecutrix shown is 1.1.2000 and as per the radiological report, the prosecutrix appears to be 20 years of age in the month of December 2020. It is undisputed that out of wedlock of the applicant and the prosecutrix, one child was born on 27.9.2021 but the charge sheet has been filed under Section 376 of I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act whereafter the Magistrate ignoring the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, passed the summoning order impugned. It is culled out from the aforesaid circumstances that prima facie, the prosecutrix seems to be major at the time of alleged incident and, therefore, the offence under the POCSO Act cannot be said to be attracted. Further the fact remains that as per the ossification report, the prosecutrix was 20 years of age in the month of December 2020 and she performed marriage with the applicant and there is one child born, on 27.12.2021, who is now about four years of age. In view of the aforesaid, the alleged victim Phoolan Devi and the applicant are directed to remain present before this Court on 18.9.2025 at 2.15 pm. Learned counsel for the applicant shall inform this order to both, i.e., the victim and the applicant. Till the next date of listing, criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.345 of 2020, State Vs. Diwakar alias Ajay Yadav, pending before the Additional Special Judge POCSO Court No.14, District Sitapur, Lucknow, shall remain stayed." 4 A482 No. 7406 of 2025 In compliance of the order aforesaid, the applicant and the alleged prosecutrix, Phoolan Devi, are present before this Court. They have been identified by their respective counsel. On a query being asked, she replied that she was major at the time of alleged incident and she has performed the marriage with applicant and there is also a four year's child out of their wedlock and she submits that the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant may be quashed. Diwakar @ Ajay Yadav, the applicant, has reiterated the aforesaid version. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that since the father of the alleged prosecutrix was annoyed with relation of the applicant with her daughter and, therefore, the First Information Report was lodged, whereas the alleged prosecutrix was major and as per the law rendered in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in [(2006) 5 SCC 475], she has performed the marriage with the applicant. He also submits that allowing the criminal proceedings against the applicant would vanish the martial life; thus, submission is that criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgement 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 submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment aforesaid. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid but he could not dispute the statement of the alleged prosecutrix given before this Court. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the First Information Report was lodged by father of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix, namely, Phoolan Devi has stated before this Court that she has performed the marriage with the applicant out of her own sweet will and she is living 5 A482 No. 7406 of 2025 happily with him and there is also 4 years' child out of their wedlock and the present case is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment rendered in the case of Vishwas Bhandari (supra); there seems to be merits in the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, the instant application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Resultantly, the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.345 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Rampur Kalan, District Sitapur; State Vs. Diwakar @ Ajay Yadav, are hereby quashed. Consequences to be followed. Personal appearance of applicant and opposite party no. 2/prosecutrix is hereby exempted. September 18, 2025 kkv/ (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

behalf of respondent no. 3 filed today by Sri Prashant Dubey is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. This revision has been filed with a payer to admit and allow the revision after setting aside the order dated 6.8.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Created Court POCSO Act Court No. 15 District Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2021 (Nattha Singh Vs. State f U.P. and others) Crime No. 345 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. P.S.- Rampur Kala, District- 2 A482 No. 7406 of 2025 Sitapur. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that marriage of daughter sister of respondent no. 2, namely, Soni Devi @ Sonika Kumari was solemnized with the elder brother of applicant, namely, Luvlesh. He further submits that the prosecutrix was in love with the applicant and their relation was not accepted by the respondent no. 2. He also submits that the date of birth of respondent no. 3 is 1.1.2000, which is duly entered into "Kutumb Register". He further submits that the applicant and respondent no. 3 entered into marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir Sector-H Harsh Vihar, Puraniya, Aliganj, Lucknow, thereafter the marriage was registered on 24.1.2020. He further submits that on the basis of concocted facts F.I.R. No. 345 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. P.S.- Rampur Kala, District- Sitapur was lodged by the respondent no. 2 against the applicant with the allegation that younger brother of son in law enticed away his daughter and he further submits that the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. She categorically stated that she is major and she entered into marriage with the applicant and wanted to live with him. He also submitted that after marriage she conceived and delivered a child on 27.9.2021. He also submits that on the basis of documents produced by the respondent no. 2 prosecutrix was declared minor thereafter Child Welfare Committee passed order dated 4.1.2021 and custody was given to her elder sister, namely, Soni Devi, wife of Luvlesh and thereafter Criminal Appeal No. 22/2021 (Nattha Singh Vs. State f U.P. and others) was filed before the Special Judge and the appeal was allowed on 6.8.2021 and order dated 4.1.2021 for giving 'supurdagi' in favour of elder sister was set aside with a direction to decide afresh. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prosecutrix is enjoying her life with her newly born child and the applicant at the house of her elder sister. He further submits that as per radiological report she was found aged about 20 years. The radiological report issued by C.M.O. ,Sitapur has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. He also submitted that the marriage of the applicant and prosecutrix is not disputed and as per the the provision of Section 6 (C) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 husband is natural guardian of minor wife but in the present case prosecutrix is major as per "Kutumb Register" and radiological examination In such circumstances kind indulgence of this Court is necessary. Learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the applicant opposed the prayer of revisionist and submit that there is no illegality in the order passed in the appeal and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 3 A482 No. 7406 of 2025 After considering the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, it is evident that in the photocopy of the "Kutumb Register" the age of the respondent no. 3 is 1.1.2000 and as per radiological report the prosecutrix is aged about 20 years in the Month of December, 2020 and it is also not disputed that out of wedlock of applicant and prosecutrix one child was born on 27.9.2021 and she is living with her elder sister and the applicant. The matter requires consideration. List this case on 22.11.2021. In the meantime, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant may file counter affidavit. Till the next date of listing, impugned order shall remain stayed." It is categorically observed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court that as per the Kutumb Register, the date of birth of the prosecutrix shown is 1.1.2000 and as per the radiological report, the prosecutrix appears to be 20 years of age in the month of December 2020. It is undisputed that out of wedlock of the applicant and the prosecutrix, one child was born on 27.9.2021 but the charge sheet has been filed under Section 376 of I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act whereafter the Magistrate ignoring the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, passed the summoning order impugned. It is culled out from the aforesaid circumstances that prima facie, the prosecutrix seems to be major at the time of alleged incident and, therefore, the offence under the POCSO Act cannot be said to be attracted. Further the fact remains that as per the ossification report, the prosecutrix was 20 years of age in the month of December 2020 and she performed marriage with the applicant and there is one child born, on 27.12.2021, who is now about four years of age. In view of the aforesaid, the alleged victim Phoolan Devi and the applicant are directed to remain present before this Court on 18.9.2025 at 2.15 pm. Learned counsel for the applicant shall inform this order to both, i.e., the victim and the applicant. Till the next date of listing, criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.345 of 2020, State Vs. Diwakar alias Ajay Yadav, pending before the Additional Special Judge POCSO Court No.14, District Sitapur, Lucknow, shall remain stayed." 4 A482 No. 7406 of 2025 In compliance of the order aforesaid, the applicant and the alleged prosecutrix, Phoolan Devi, are present before this Court. They have been identified by their respective counsel. On a query being asked, she replied that she was major at the time of alleged incident and she has performed the marriage with applicant and there is also a four year's child out of their wedlock and she submits that the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant may be quashed. Diwakar @ Ajay Yadav, the applicant, has reiterated the aforesaid version. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that since the father of the alleged prosecutrix was annoyed with relation of the applicant with her daughter and, therefore, the First Information Report was lodged, whereas the alleged prosecutrix was major and as per the law rendered in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in [(2006) 5 SCC 475], she has performed the marriage with the applicant. He also submits that allowing the criminal proceedings against the applicant would vanish the martial life; thus, submission is that criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgement 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 submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment aforesaid. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid but he could not dispute the statement of the alleged prosecutrix given before this Court. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the First Information Report was lodged by father of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix, namely, Phoolan Devi has stated before this Court that she has performed the marriage with the applicant out of her own sweet will and she is living 5 A482 No. 7406 of 2025 happily with him and there is also 4 years' child out of their wedlock and the present case is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment rendered in the case of Vishwas Bhandari (supra); there seems to be merits in the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, the instant application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Resultantly, the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.345 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Rampur Kalan, District Sitapur; State Vs. Diwakar @ Ajay Yadav, are hereby quashed. Consequences to be followed. Personal appearance of applicant and opposite party no. 2/prosecutrix is hereby exempted. September 18, 2025 kkv/ (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench