Allahabad High Court
Raju vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 17 July, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46477
Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 652 of 2020
Applicant :- Raju
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui,Devesh Deo Bhatt,Kavish Khan,Mohd. Shahanshah Newaz Kh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A,Anjum Ara
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anjum Ara, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings on the basis of compromise of the impugned Sessions Trial No.1161 of 2014, Case Crime No.227 of 2014 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. & 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Mall, District Lucknow, State Vs. Raju, pending in the court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow, impugned charge sheet dated 19.11.2014, cognizance order dated 23.12.2014 and its consequential order in respect of the applicant.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next submitted that due to animosity, the F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the victim. He added that alleged victim herself has stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that her mother and father were usually beating her and they also tried to perform her marriage with an old age man and therefore, she went away with the applicant and peformed marriage with him and there are two children born out of their wedlock. He further submits that the applicant and alleged victim has also entered into compromise deed on 29.1.2020, wherein, in para 2, they have mentioned the fact as stated above.
In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021 and has referred paragraphs 9 and 10 and the same are extracted hereunder:-
"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 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from 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."
Referring the aforesaid, he submits that Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy and the case of the present applicant is also squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment aforesaid.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 supports the version of the learned counsel for the applicant and reiterated that now the opposite party no. 2 has no grievance against the applicant. The opposite party no. 2 and the applicant are living with each other in an affectionate atmosphere and thus, further criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.
Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.
The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
For a period of one month, theproceedings on the basis of compromise of the impugned Sessions Trial No.1161 of 2014, Case Crime No.227 of 2014 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. & 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Mall, District Lucknow, State Vs. Raju, pending in the court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow, shall remain stayed so far as applicant are concerned.
Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicants, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same.
Order Date :- 17.7.2023
Ram Murti
