Kartik v. State of U.P. & others'

2. The applicant and the opposite party no. 4 (victim) are present before this Court, who have been identified by Shri Rajeev Kumar Mishra Rudra, Advocate and Shri Rajendra Prasad Lodhi, Advocate, appearing for the said parties.

3. Heard.

4. The present application has been filed with following main prayer: "to quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 341/2024, 'State Vs Kartik', arising out of the Charge-Sheet No. 01/2024 dated 17.03.2024, under section - 363, 366, 376(2)N I.P.C., & Section 5(L)/6 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Gonda, in Case Crime No. 24/2024, under section 363, 366, 376(2)N I.P.C., & Section 5(L)/6 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda, pending in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda, on the basis of compromise dated 17.09.2024, held between the parties, which was duly verified by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda, vide order dated 18.11.2024, in pursuance of order dated 22.10.2024, passed by this Hon'ble High Court in A-482 No. 9258/2024, 'Kartik Vs State of U.P. & others'."

5. It is stated that the applicant and the opposite party no. 4/victim were having an affair. However, this relationship was not acceptable to the family members of the opposite party no. 4 and therefore, the opposite party no. 2 lodged the FIR No. 24 of 2024 on 04.07.2019 making allegations therein to attract the offence under Sections 363, 376, 376(2)N IPC and Sections 5(L)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

6. It is also stated that during investigation the statement(s) of the victim under Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., respectively were recorded. According to these statements, the opposite party no. 4/victim and the applicant were in affair and the victim, on her own volition, left the house of her parents and accompanied the applicant to Ghaziabad and solemnized marriage with the applicant. The certificate of Registraition of Marriage under Uttar Pradesh Marraige Registration Rules, 2017 is annexed at Page 11 of the supplementary affidavit.

7. It is also stated that in so far as date of birth indicated in the school record i.e. 21.05.2007 is concerned, the same was not correctly recorded and there is no evidence to support/establish that the age of the victim recorded in the school record is correct and in view of the same as also 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.5/victim both.

8. It is also stated that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of victim and the applicant would be ruined.

9. On being asked on the aforesaid, the opposite party no. 4/victim has not disputed the aforesaid. On being asked on the aforesaid, the victim/opposite party No.4, present before this Court, stated that she is living happily with the applicant.

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 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 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. 4/victim and the applicant would be ruined and further, that in the given facts of the case chances of conviction are extremely bleak, 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 arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. 24 of 2024, mentioned in prayer clause, quoted above, 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 :- 7.1.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. The applicant and the opposite party no. 4 (victim) are present before this Court, who have been identified by Shri Rajeev Kumar Mishra Rudra, Advocate and Shri Rajendra Prasad Lodhi, Advocate, appearing for the said parties.

3. Heard.

4. The present application has been filed with following main prayer: "to quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 341/2024, 'State Vs Kartik', arising out of the Charge-Sheet No. 01/2024 dated 17.03.2024, under section - 363, 366, 376(2)N I.P.C., & Section 5(L)/6 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Gonda, in Case Crime No. 24/2024, under section 363, 366, 376(2)N I.P.C., & Section 5(L)/6 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda, pending in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda, on the basis of compromise dated 17.09.2024, held between the parties, which was duly verified by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda, vide order dated 18.11.2024, in pursuance of order dated 22.10.2024, passed by this Hon'ble High Court in A-482 No. 9258/2024, 'Kartik Vs State of U.P. & others'."

5. It is stated that the applicant and the opposite party no. 4/victim were having an affair. However, this relationship was not acceptable to the family members of the opposite party no. 4 and therefore, the opposite party no. 2 lodged the FIR No. 24 of 2024 on 04.07.2019 making allegations therein to attract the offence under Sections 363, 376, 376(2)N IPC and Sections 5(L)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

6. It is also stated that during investigation the statement(s) of the victim under Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., respectively were recorded. According to these statements, the opposite party no. 4/victim and the applicant were in affair and the victim, on her own volition, left the house of her parents and accompanied the applicant to Ghaziabad and solemnized marriage with the applicant. The certificate of Registraition of Marriage under Uttar Pradesh Marraige Registration Rules, 2017 is annexed at Page 11 of the supplementary affidavit.

7. It is also stated that in so far as date of birth indicated in the school record i.e. 21.05.2007 is concerned, the same was not correctly recorded and there is no evidence to support/establish that the age of the victim recorded in the school record is correct and in view of the same as also 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.5/victim both.

8. It is also stated that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of victim and the applicant would be ruined.

9. On being asked on the aforesaid, the opposite party no. 4/victim has not disputed the aforesaid. On being asked on the aforesaid, the victim/opposite party No.4, present before this Court, stated that she is living happily with the applicant.

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 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 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. 4/victim and the applicant would be ruined and further, that in the given facts of the case chances of conviction are extremely bleak, 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 arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. 24 of 2024, mentioned in prayer clause, quoted above, 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 :- 7.1.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench