Allahabad High Court
Vikram Arkvanshi @ Vikram Arakh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 July, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3159 of 2020
Applicant :- Vikram Arkvanshi @ Vikram Arakh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi,Anand Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings of Charge-sheet No.80A arising out of Case Crime No.215 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Mallawan District Hardoi pending in the Court of Special Judge POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi.
2. Initially, FIR No.0215 of 2017 got registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC on 06.07.2017 against the petitioner on a complaint given by the father of the prosecutrix alleging that on 30.06.2017 at 12 noon the prosecutrix aged around 16 years was enticed away by the petitioner. It was further said that the prosecutrix took with her 150 gm silver jewellery, some jewellery of gold and Rs.3500/- cash. The prosecutrix was recovered and in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she said that she went with Sandeep as she was in love with him. She went to Karnataka where she lived with him. She performed marriage with him. She has not assigned any role played by the accused-applicant in commission of the offence. Despite clear stand of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer again recorded statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she said that she went to Karnataka with the accused-applicant.
3. It is very strange that after statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., again statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix has not stated that she did not go voluntarily to Karnataka or she was enticed away by him.
4. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no chance of the petitioner being convicted for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Even otherwise, if a minor lives with a person voluntarily without any inducement, force or coercion, such a person is not duty-bound to send back the minor in the custody of his/her guardians/parents as held by the Supreme Court in the case of S. Varadarajan vs State Of Madras 1965 AIR 942.
5. Considering the the ratio of judgment in the case of S.Varadarajan (supra), this Court finds that continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court inasmuch as there is very low chance of conviction of the petitioner and, therefore, proceedings of Charge-sheet No.80A arising out of Case Crime No.215 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Mallawan District Hardoi pending in the Court of Special Judge POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi are hereby quashed.
6. The petition is allowed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 7.7.2022
prateek
