Punnu (As Per Charge Sheet) But Actual Name Is Mohammad Safi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And

Punnu, emanating out of FIR No. 279/2019. U/s-363/366/376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. P.S. Jarwal Road, District Bahraich, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bahraich, and to quash the charge-sheet dated 31.08.2020 and cognizance / summoning order dated 21.11.2020 as well as the non bailable warrants issued qua the petitioner."

3. The names of Sri Shailendra Kumar and Sri Shailendra Kumar Shukla, Advocates are shown as counsel for the complainant of the present case. However, no objection/counter affidavit is filed by the respondent no.2.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim was in friendship with the applicant and she was willing to enter into marriage 2 A482 No. 9727 of 2024 with him, but her family members were against her wishes, as a result, she left her house and joined the company of the applicant on her own free will. Thereafter, on the basis of concocted facts, the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the mother of the victim. The victim came back after getting information about the F.I.R. of the case in question. It is further submitted that the victim's statement u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, she categorically denied the prosecution version. The victim's radiological age was also examined, in which, her age was found 18 to 19 years. But, without considering the statement of the victim recorded u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Then, the trial was proceeded. It is next submitted that on the last date, the victim was present alongwith her children before this Court and requested for quashing of proceeding as she is enjoying her matrimonial life. It is also submitted that the victim is residing with the applicant and they are enjoying their matrimonial life and presently, they have two kids. In such circumstances, the trial of the case in question is a futile one, hence, the proceedings may be quashed. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in Crl. Appeal No. 001005 of 2025, learned counsel for the applicant requests for indulgence of this court.

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that as per the school leaving certificate, the victim was minor at the time of incident. However, he does not dispute on the statement of the victim recorded u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she denied the prosecution story, and her radiological age was found 18 to 19 years.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that on the last date, the victim appeared before this Court alongwith her children and informed that she is enjoying her matrimonial life with the applicant. As per radiological examination, the victim's age was found 18 to 19 years at the time of the incident. The 3 A482 No. 9727 of 2024 certificate was issued by C.M.O. as a part of case diary. The victim has denied the prosecution story before the Investigation Officer as well as learned Magistrate. Relevant part of the victim's statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is as under:- "नाम-नूरी बेगम, उ(cid:356) 18 वष(cid:259) (पीि(cid:237)ता के बताने के अनुसार) पु(cid:347)ी-(cid:293)व० फा(cid:628)ख िनवासी (cid:334)ाम मीरगंज बसिहया पाते थाना-जरवल रोड, बहराइच ने सशपथ बयान िकया िक- म(cid:520) क(cid:87)ा (cid:264)यारहव(cid:514) म(cid:517) प(cid:238) रही (cid:632)ँ। घटना 16.12.19 के दोपहर 12.30 बजे की है। मैन(cid:517) मो० सफी अहमद पु(cid:347) मो० शमी को अ(cid:476)ाइसा गाँव म(cid:517) बुलाया था। म(cid:520) घर से िबना िकसी को बताये और िबना कोई सामान िलये उससे (मो० सफी) से िमलने चली गई। बस म(cid:517) हम दोन(cid:523) लखनऊ चले गये। दो िदन एक सटर लगे (cid:621)कान म(cid:517) रह(cid:517) लखनऊ म(cid:517) एक वकील के घर पर हमारी शादी (cid:631)ई। म(cid:520) वहाँ से खैरा आ गई। सफी अहमद लखनऊ म(cid:517) ही रहे। मुझे पुिलस ने पक(cid:237) िलया। म(cid:520) ही सफी को जबरद(cid:293)ती लेकर गई थी, वो नही चल रहे थे। म(cid:520) सफी के साथ ही रहना चाहती (cid:632)ँ। वो मेरा शौहर है। बस यही मेरा बयान है। यह बयान म(cid:520) अपनी मज(cid:515) से िबना िकसी जोर दबाव के दे रही (cid:632)ँ।"

7. It is evident that the victim and the applicant are enjoying their matrimonial life alongwith their children. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bahraich, the entire proceedings of the case registered as Sessions Trial No. 860/2020 arising out of F.I.R. No. 279/2019, U/s 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S.- Jarwal Road, District- Bahraich, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bahraich, and the charge-sheet dated 31.08.2020, the summoning order dated

21.11.2020, the non bailable warrants issued qua the applicant including entire proceedings in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed.

8. With the above observations, the application is allowed.

9. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court, forthwith. November 26, 2025 Arpan (Rajeev Singh,J.) ARPAN ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Punnu, emanating out of FIR No. 279/2019. U/s-363/366/376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. P.S. Jarwal Road, District Bahraich, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bahraich, and to quash the charge-sheet dated 31.08.2020 and cognizance / summoning order dated 21.11.2020 as well as the non bailable warrants issued qua the petitioner."

3. The names of Sri Shailendra Kumar and Sri Shailendra Kumar Shukla, Advocates are shown as counsel for the complainant of the present case. However, no objection/counter affidavit is filed by the respondent no.2.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim was in friendship with the applicant and she was willing to enter into marriage 2 A482 No. 9727 of 2024 with him, but her family members were against her wishes, as a result, she left her house and joined the company of the applicant on her own free will. Thereafter, on the basis of concocted facts, the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the mother of the victim. The victim came back after getting information about the F.I.R. of the case in question. It is further submitted that the victim's statement u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, she categorically denied the prosecution version. The victim's radiological age was also examined, in which, her age was found 18 to 19 years. But, without considering the statement of the victim recorded u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Then, the trial was proceeded. It is next submitted that on the last date, the victim was present alongwith her children before this Court and requested for quashing of proceeding as she is enjoying her matrimonial life. It is also submitted that the victim is residing with the applicant and they are enjoying their matrimonial life and presently, they have two kids. In such circumstances, the trial of the case in question is a futile one, hence, the proceedings may be quashed. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in Crl. Appeal No. 001005 of 2025, learned counsel for the applicant requests for indulgence of this court.

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that as per the school leaving certificate, the victim was minor at the time of incident. However, he does not dispute on the statement of the victim recorded u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she denied the prosecution story, and her radiological age was found 18 to 19 years.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that on the last date, the victim appeared before this Court alongwith her children and informed that she is enjoying her matrimonial life with the applicant. As per radiological examination, the victim's age was found 18 to 19 years at the time of the incident. The 3 A482 No. 9727 of 2024 certificate was issued by C.M.O. as a part of case diary. The victim has denied the prosecution story before the Investigation Officer as well as learned Magistrate. Relevant part of the victim's statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is as under:- "नाम-नूरी बेगम, उ(cid:356) 18 वष(cid:259) (पीि(cid:237)ता के बताने के अनुसार) पु(cid:347)ी-(cid:293)व० फा(cid:628)ख िनवासी (cid:334)ाम मीरगंज बसिहया पाते थाना-जरवल रोड, बहराइच ने सशपथ बयान िकया िक- म(cid:520) क(cid:87)ा (cid:264)यारहव(cid:514) म(cid:517) प(cid:238) रही (cid:632)ँ। घटना 16.12.19 के दोपहर 12.30 बजे की है। मैन(cid:517) मो० सफी अहमद पु(cid:347) मो० शमी को अ(cid:476)ाइसा गाँव म(cid:517) बुलाया था। म(cid:520) घर से िबना िकसी को बताये और िबना कोई सामान िलये उससे (मो० सफी) से िमलने चली गई। बस म(cid:517) हम दोन(cid:523) लखनऊ चले गये। दो िदन एक सटर लगे (cid:621)कान म(cid:517) रह(cid:517) लखनऊ म(cid:517) एक वकील के घर पर हमारी शादी (cid:631)ई। म(cid:520) वहाँ से खैरा आ गई। सफी अहमद लखनऊ म(cid:517) ही रहे। मुझे पुिलस ने पक(cid:237) िलया। म(cid:520) ही सफी को जबरद(cid:293)ती लेकर गई थी, वो नही चल रहे थे। म(cid:520) सफी के साथ ही रहना चाहती (cid:632)ँ। वो मेरा शौहर है। बस यही मेरा बयान है। यह बयान म(cid:520) अपनी मज(cid:515) से िबना िकसी जोर दबाव के दे रही (cid:632)ँ।"

7. It is evident that the victim and the applicant are enjoying their matrimonial life alongwith their children. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bahraich, the entire proceedings of the case registered as Sessions Trial No. 860/2020 arising out of F.I.R. No. 279/2019, U/s 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S.- Jarwal Road, District- Bahraich, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bahraich, and the charge-sheet dated 31.08.2020, the summoning order dated

21.11.2020, the non bailable warrants issued qua the applicant including entire proceedings in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed.

8. With the above observations, the application is allowed.

9. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court, forthwith. November 26, 2025 Arpan (Rajeev Singh,J.) ARPAN ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench