✦ High Court of India · 16 Jan 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 16 Jan 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
16 Jan 2025
Bench
Court of Learned Special
Length
1,138 words

Cited in this judgment

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P., Ms. Mithlesh Yadav, learned counsel for the private opposite party No.(s) 2 and 3 and gone through the record.

3. The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief:- "To quash the impugned Charge Sheet dated 13.02.2021 (Charge Sheet No. 01/2021) in Case Crime No. 330/2019, U/S. 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & Section-3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Tarabganj, District- Gonda filed by the Investigating Officer against the applicant and to quash the impugned entire criminal proceeding of Session Case No. 280/2021, State Vs. Bhulavan @ Nanku in Case Crime No. 330/2019, U/S. 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & Section-3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Tarabganj, District- Gonda, pending in the Court of Learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Gonda."

4. It is stated that applicant and victim/ opposite party No. 3 were in affair and victim/ opposite party No. 3 was inclined to marry the applicant.

5. It is further stated that the relationship of victim/ opposite party No. 3 and applicant was not acknowledged/ accepted by the family members of victim/ opposite party No. 3 and therefore an FIR was lodged by the opposite party No.2, father of victim, on 18.11.2019 lodged as FIR No. 0330/2019 making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 363, 366. As per this FIR, the victim/ opposite party No.3 was 16 years old and the applicant, who used to frequently visit the village of the victim/ opposite party No.3 as he has some relatives in the victim's neighbourhood, in the night of 14.11.2019, enticed away/abducted the victim/ opposite party No.3.

6. It is also stated that the date of birth of the victim/opposite party No.3, upon which the prosecution is relying, is itself doubtful, as according to Primary school records, the victim/opposite party No. 3 was born on 12.05.2000 and being so she was 19 years old at the time of lodging FIR whereas as per High School records, the victim/opposite party No. 3 was born on 15.04.2004 and as per medicolegal report, the victim/opposite party No. 3 at that time was 18-19 years old, as such, taking note of the same as also that there is no authentic proof to establish the date of birth of victim/ opposite party No. 3 correctly recorded in school records as also various pronouncements on the issue related to determination of age, the victim/opposite party No. 3 is liable to be considered as major at the time of incident.

7. It is also stated that in so far as age of victim/ opposite party No. 3 indicated in the school records is concerned, the same was not correctly recorded and there is no evidence to support/ establish the age of the victim recorded in the school records 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.3/ victim both.

8. It is also stated that presently the applicant and victim/ opposite party No. 3 are living as husband and wife alongwith their minor namely Janhvi, aged about 2 years, which can be deduced from the facts pleaded in the present application.

9. 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. 3 as also future of their minor would be ruined.

10. 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. 3/ victim and the applicant would be ruined as also the future of their minor would 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.

11. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 G. Singh/ Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P., Ms. Mithlesh Yadav, learned counsel for the private opposite party No.(s) 2 and 3 and gone through the record.

3. The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief:- "To quash the impugned Charge Sheet dated 13.02.2021 (Charge Sheet No. 01/2021) in Case Crime No. 330/2019, U/S. 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & Section-3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Tarabganj, District- Gonda filed by the Investigating Officer against the applicant and to quash the impugned entire criminal proceeding of Session Case No. 280/2021, State Vs. Bhulavan @ Nanku in Case Crime No. 330/2019, U/S. 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & Section-3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Tarabganj, District- Gonda, pending in the Court of Learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Gonda."

4. It is stated that applicant and victim/ opposite party No. 3 were in affair and victim/ opposite party No. 3 was inclined to marry the applicant.

5. It is further stated that the relationship of victim/ opposite party No. 3 and applicant was not acknowledged/ accepted by the family members of victim/ opposite party No. 3 and therefore an FIR was lodged by the opposite party No.2, father of victim, on 18.11.2019 lodged as FIR No. 0330/2019 making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 363, 366. As per this FIR, the victim/ opposite party No.3 was 16 years old and the applicant, who used to frequently visit the village of the victim/ opposite party No.3 as he has some relatives in the victim's neighbourhood, in the night of 14.11.2019, enticed away/abducted the victim/ opposite party No.3.

6. It is also stated that the date of birth of the victim/opposite party No.3, upon which the prosecution is relying, is itself doubtful, as according to Primary school records, the victim/opposite party No. 3 was born on 12.05.2000 and being so she was 19 years old at the time of lodging FIR whereas as per High School records, the victim/opposite party No. 3 was born on 15.04.2004 and as per medicolegal report, the victim/opposite party No. 3 at that time was 18-19 years old, as such, taking note of the same as also that there is no authentic proof to establish the date of birth of victim/ opposite party No. 3 correctly recorded in school records as also various pronouncements on the issue related to determination of age, the victim/opposite party No. 3 is liable to be considered as major at the time of incident.

7. It is also stated that in so far as age of victim/ opposite party No. 3 indicated in the school records is concerned, the same was not correctly recorded and there is no evidence to support/ establish the age of the victim recorded in the school records 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.3/ victim both.

8. It is also stated that presently the applicant and victim/ opposite party No. 3 are living as husband and wife alongwith their minor namely Janhvi, aged about 2 years, which can be deduced from the facts pleaded in the present application.

9. 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. 3 as also future of their minor would be ruined.

10. 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. 3/ victim and the applicant would be ruined as also the future of their minor would 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.

11. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 G. Singh/ Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments