Allahabad High Court
Ram Pal Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 April, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4163 of 2009
Applicant :- Ram Pal Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Singh,Abhishek Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Short counter affidavit filed by the Counsel for opposite party no. 3 along with the Vakalatnama is taken on record.
In compliance of the order dated 18.04.2023, the applicant, Ram Pal Yadav, as well as the opposite party no. 3, Chhotanni @ Gudiya is present before this Court. On a query being asked to the opposite party no. 3, she replied that she performed marriage with the applicant in the year 2008, as also, she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and has two children out of their wedlock. She also submits that she is living peacefully with the present applicant as husband and wife.
The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that due to annoyance, the First Information Report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 i.e. the brother of the opposite party no. 3, on 28.08.2008, alleging therein that the opposite party no. 3 was enticed away by the applicant when she was only 14 years of age. He further submits that the opposite party no. 3 was a major at the time of her marriage with the applicant and is living peacefully as husband and wife, and, they have two children out of their wedlock. He next added that the brother being annoyed with the present applicant, has lodged the First Information Report and there is no truthfulness in the allegation levelled in the First Information Report. He also adds that the further criminal proceedings will unsettle the marital life of the applicant and the opposite party no. 3 and this would be a futile exercise and amounts to harassment of the applicant and the opposite party no. 3. Thus, in the interest of justice, criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant in criminal case 198 of 2009, State Vs. Ram Pal Yadav, arising out of Case Crime no. 610 of 2008 may be quashed.
In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2021 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6289 of 2020 and has referred Paragraph 6, 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment. Paragraph 6, 9 and 10 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:-
"(6) The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.08.2013 held that neither the complainant nor the prosecutrix have disclosed the exact date of birth. Further, no birth certificate was produced to show that the age of the prosecutrix was less than 18 years on the alleged date of occurrence of abduction. The learned trial Court recorded the following finding:
"21. Although the prosecutrix PW2 in her examination in chief has stated that the accused had abducted her on the pretext that he will wi9ll solemnized marriage but how and where abducted her has not been explained by her. Admittedly it is stated by her that was known to her. There is nothing in the statement of this witness that she tried to escape from the clutches of the accused or that she was forced to marry him. Even if it is presumed that the prosecutrix was minor but if she leaves her parents home in every case it cannot be held that it is the accused who has possibly abducted the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was known to the accused, went with him, married him with consent of both families, had two children with him, then, it cannot be said that she was taken out forcibly from the custody of her lawful guardian, as it is not proved that she is minor as non production of birth certificate issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Jalandhar, gives rise to the presumption that, the same could have shown her to be major and hence doubt creeps into the version of the prosecution, the benefit of which is to be given to the accused."
With these findings, the accused Vikram Roop Rai was acquitted.
(9) We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 04.08.2013 and had given birth to two children out of that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
(10) Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant."
Relying on the above noted judgment, he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgment.
On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party no. 3 has also supported the version of the Counsel for the applicant and submits that the opposite party no. 3 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and since year 2008, she is living with the applicant as wife and there are two children from their wedlock and the same has been mentioned in the affidavit, in Paragraph 3 to 8. The Counsel next added that further criminal proceedings would amount to harassment and therefore criminal proceedings against the applicant may be dropped.
Learned Counsel for the State has objected on the merits but so far as the fact is concerned that the applicant and the opposite party no. 3 has performed marriage and living as husband and wife, he has no objection.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it transpires that the F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the opposite party no. 3 against the present applicant for enticing away her sister being a minor. The affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 3 is evident that she has performed marriage with the applicant in the year 2008. They are living as husband and wife since last 15 years and there are two children from their wedlock. The Apex Court in the case of Vishwas Bhandari (Supra) has also settled the issue and the case of the present applicant is covered with ratio of the judgment aforesaid. Resultantly, the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case no. 198 of 2009, State Vs. Ram Pal Yadav under Section 363, 366 of IPC registered at Police Station - Rampur Mathura, District - Sitapur is hereby quashed.
The personal appearance of the applicant and the opposite party no. 3 is hereby exempted.
Consequences shall be followed accordingly.
The application is allowed in aforesaid terms.
Order Date :- 26.4.2023
Lokesh Kumar
