Adil Khan v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And

1. Short counter affidavit filed today by Shri Avanish Kumar Tiwari, Advocate alongwith Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P., Shri Avanish Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief(s):- "A-QUASH the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 04.06.2014 passed under Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act by the court of Special A.D.J., Court No.14, Lucknow, U/s 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 in Criminal Case No.0000408/2014 (State of U.P. Vs Moh. Luckey @ Adil Khan) and the charge sheet dated 29.5.2014 in F.I.R. No.40/2014 dated 20.12.2014 lodged at Police Station-Bazar Khala, District- Lucknow, Under section 363 & 366 Indian Penal Code and the entire proceeding arising out of cognizance order dated 04.06.2014 on the basis of compromise dated 10.11.2025 annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 with this application."

4. Applicant/Moh. Lucky Khan @ Adil Khan, opposite party No.2/complainant-Rajesh Kumar Kashyap and opposite party No.3-victim of the case are present before this Court. The applicant has been identified by Shri Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, opposite party Nos.2 and 3-Complainant and the Victim of the case have been identified by Shri Avanish Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.

5. It is stated that applicant and alleged victim/opposite party No.3 were having affair and therefore the alleged victim, who from her appearance was an adult at the relevant point of time, she left her parental house and 2 A482 No. 10084 of 2025 accompanied the applicant and, therefore, the opposite party No.2 being annoyed lodged the F.I.R. dated 20.02.2014, Case Crime No.40/2014, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station -Bazarkhala, District - Lucknow making allegations against the applicant and others and on coming to know about lodging of the F.I.R. dated 20.02.2014, the alleged victim/opposite party No.3 and the applicant came back to the native place.

6. It is further submitted that after coming back to the native place, the statement of the alleged victim was reduced in writing by the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") under Section 161 Cr.P.C., typed copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.5, and a perusal of the same would indicate that the applicant and the alleged victim were having affair and the alleged victim on her own volition left her home and accompanied the applicant and also physical relation was established by the applicant with the consent of alleged victim.

7. It is next submitted that a perusal of the statement of the alleged victim made in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. would also indicate that the alleged victim, was in affair with the applicant and on her own volition left her home on 18th January, 2014 and accompanied the applicant to Bombay.

8. It is next submitted that the applicant and the alleged victim solemnized marriage on 3rd November, 2016 according to Muslim rites and rituals and both are living under one roof as husband and wife along with children born out of the wedlock of the applicant and the alleged victim namely (i) Abdullah Khan, born on 05.10.2018, (ii) Ayaan Khan, born on 26.05.2021, and (iii) Jaid Khan, born on 06.09.2024.

9. It is next submitted that according to the medical opinion, the victim at the relevant point of time was aged about 18 years.

10. It has also submitted that the parties, i.e. applicant, alleged victim and the informant have entered into a compromise, which has been annexed as Annexure No.8 to the application, according to which the applicant shall keep the victim and the children with full dignity and respect and that they do not want to pursue the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.40 of 2014. instant the prosecution is no evidence available with

11. It is also stated that in so far as age of alleged victim/opposite party No. 3 on which the prosecution is placing reliance, the same is not correct support/establish the said age of the alleged victim and in view of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including in the case(s) of 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. benefit case,

12. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the 3 A482 No. 10084 of 2025 case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter, as otherwise, entire matrimonial life of applicant and alleged victim/opposite party No.3 as also future of their minors would be ruined.

13. The informant/opposite party No.2 and the alleged victim/opposite party No. 3 present before this Court have also not disputed the aforesaid.

14. 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 alleged victim/opposite party No.3 and the applicant would be ruined as also the future of their minors would be ruined, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court.

15. Accordingly, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings of S.T./Special Criminal Case No.0000408/2014 (State of U.P. Vs Moh. Luckey @ Adil Khan), under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Bazarkhala, District-Lucknow, arising out of charge sheet dated 29.5.2014 relating to F.I.R. No.40/2014, dated 20.12.2014, pending before the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.14, Lucknow, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed.

16. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. November 28, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Short counter affidavit filed today by Shri Avanish Kumar Tiwari, Advocate alongwith Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P., Shri Avanish Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief(s):- "A-QUASH the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 04.06.2014 passed under Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act by the court of Special A.D.J., Court No.14, Lucknow, U/s 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 in Criminal Case No.0000408/2014 (State of U.P. Vs Moh. Luckey @ Adil Khan) and the charge sheet dated 29.5.2014 in F.I.R. No.40/2014 dated 20.12.2014 lodged at Police Station-Bazar Khala, District- Lucknow, Under section 363 & 366 Indian Penal Code and the entire proceeding arising out of cognizance order dated 04.06.2014 on the basis of compromise dated 10.11.2025 annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 with this application."

4. Applicant/Moh. Lucky Khan @ Adil Khan, opposite party No.2/complainant-Rajesh Kumar Kashyap and opposite party No.3-victim of the case are present before this Court. The applicant has been identified by Shri Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, opposite party Nos.2 and 3-Complainant and the Victim of the case have been identified by Shri Avanish Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.

5. It is stated that applicant and alleged victim/opposite party No.3 were having affair and therefore the alleged victim, who from her appearance was an adult at the relevant point of time, she left her parental house and 2 A482 No. 10084 of 2025 accompanied the applicant and, therefore, the opposite party No.2 being annoyed lodged the F.I.R. dated 20.02.2014, Case Crime No.40/2014, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station -Bazarkhala, District - Lucknow making allegations against the applicant and others and on coming to know about lodging of the F.I.R. dated 20.02.2014, the alleged victim/opposite party No.3 and the applicant came back to the native place.

6. It is further submitted that after coming back to the native place, the statement of the alleged victim was reduced in writing by the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") under Section 161 Cr.P.C., typed copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.5, and a perusal of the same would indicate that the applicant and the alleged victim were having affair and the alleged victim on her own volition left her home and accompanied the applicant and also physical relation was established by the applicant with the consent of alleged victim.

7. It is next submitted that a perusal of the statement of the alleged victim made in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. would also indicate that the alleged victim, was in affair with the applicant and on her own volition left her home on 18th January, 2014 and accompanied the applicant to Bombay.

8. It is next submitted that the applicant and the alleged victim solemnized marriage on 3rd November, 2016 according to Muslim rites and rituals and both are living under one roof as husband and wife along with children born out of the wedlock of the applicant and the alleged victim namely (i) Abdullah Khan, born on 05.10.2018, (ii) Ayaan Khan, born on 26.05.2021, and (iii) Jaid Khan, born on 06.09.2024.

9. It is next submitted that according to the medical opinion, the victim at the relevant point of time was aged about 18 years.

10. It has also submitted that the parties, i.e. applicant, alleged victim and the informant have entered into a compromise, which has been annexed as Annexure No.8 to the application, according to which the applicant shall keep the victim and the children with full dignity and respect and that they do not want to pursue the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.40 of 2014. instant the prosecution is no evidence available with

11. It is also stated that in so far as age of alleged victim/opposite party No. 3 on which the prosecution is placing reliance, the same is not correct support/establish the said age of the alleged victim and in view of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including in the case(s) of 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. benefit case,

12. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the 3 A482 No. 10084 of 2025 case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter, as otherwise, entire matrimonial life of applicant and alleged victim/opposite party No.3 as also future of their minors would be ruined.

13. The informant/opposite party No.2 and the alleged victim/opposite party No. 3 present before this Court have also not disputed the aforesaid.

14. 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 alleged victim/opposite party No.3 and the applicant would be ruined as also the future of their minors would be ruined, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court.

15. Accordingly, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings of S.T./Special Criminal Case No.0000408/2014 (State of U.P. Vs Moh. Luckey @ Adil Khan), under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Bazarkhala, District-Lucknow, arising out of charge sheet dated 29.5.2014 relating to F.I.R. No.40/2014, dated 20.12.2014, pending before the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.14, Lucknow, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed.

16. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. November 28, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench