Allahabad High Court
Sumit Chauhan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7640 of 2023
Applicant :- Sumit Chauhan And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A.
Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and 3 today in the Court is taken on record.
By means of the present application, the prayer sought by the applicant is to quash the charge sheet dated 08.11.2012 as well as cognizance order dated 16.11.2015 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut in case no.47 of 2015 State vs. Isham and another under sections 368 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act as well as to quash the entire proceeding of case no.47 of 2015 and POCSO Case no.283 of 2016 arising out of case crime no.575 of 2015 relating to Police statiion-Daurala, District-Meerut pending before the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no.12, Meerut.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that initially, the FIR was got registered under sections 363 and 366 IPC by one Satendra Kumar-first informant against the applicants mentioning therein that her young daughter of 16 years was enticed away by the applicants. After great deal and effort, the girl on her own went to her place. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer of the case has filed two charge sheets, one charge sheet no.347 of 2015 under sections 368 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and second charge sheet dated 28.02.2016 under section 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act against the applicant-Sumit. The next contention is that after recovery of the girl, her statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. whereby she, in so many words has submitted that she has called her boyfriend-Sumit and on her volition and accord, went with Sumit on 07.09.2015 leaving her parental house. She has accused her own family members for beating her and marrying her to some other person against her will.
It is further mentioned in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement that they have come to this Court for performing the court marriage and performed the marriage in temple. Thereafter, they have started residing in Delhi and she further stated that she wants to remain with her husband-Sumit. She further denied that she does not want to go back to her family members. She has given complete clean chit that she was never enticed away by her husband and her husband has not committed any offence against her. She further states that she, on her own, joined the company of the applicant. It is further submitted that both of them have got married and the marriage registration certification dated 08.08.2016 is annexed as Annexure-7 to the application.
In addition to this, learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that this wedlock has given birth to three babies namely Divyanshi, Mishthi and Vani. Thus, there are now life of five persons are at stake. All of them are happily residing as family and now the prosecution against the applicant would be heavy and have direct impact on the marital life of the husband and wife.
In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mafat Lal and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan in Crl. Appeal no. 592 of 2022 decided on 28.03.2022 and Jatin Agarwal Vs. State of Telangana and anr in Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2022 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9568 of 2021 decided on 21.03.2022 and Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi and anr. in Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2021 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No.8909 of 2019 to buttress his contention.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the contention of learned counsel for the applicants and opposite party no.2 has got no objection in the event, the proceeding of the aforesaid case is quashed.
Since, the parties have come to terms and have amicably settled their dispute, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. Accordingly, the proceeding of the charge sheet dated 08.11.2015 as well as cognizance order dated 16.11.2015 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut in case no.47 of 2015 State vs. Isham and another under sections 368 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act as well as the entire proceeding of case no.47 of 2015 and POCSO Case no.283 of 2016 arising out of case crime no.575 of 2015 relating to Police station-Daurala, District-Meerut pending before the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no.12, Meerut is hereby QUASHED.
Let the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby ALLOWED.
Order Date :- 1.3.2023
Sumit S
