Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Nishad @ Rajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 3 October, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:63210
Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9474 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajesh Nishad @ Rajesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Rankaj Kumar Vishwakarma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Heard SriRankaj Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Instant application has been filed with prayer to set- aside/quash the entire proceeding of POCSO Case No.81/2017 U/S 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station-Mahrua, District- Ambedkar Nagar, on the basis of compromise/ settlement arrived at between the parties pending before the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that an FIR has been lodged on 30.09.2017 by the father of teh alleged victim alleging, the date of incident on 29.09.2017, by the father of the alleged victim. He added that in fact due to animosity, the FIR has been lodged against the applicant though, he has never been involved in committing offence, contrary to it, the alleged victim has went away with Rajesh Nishad, and she performed marriage with him and they are living as husband and wife. He added that later on the complainant i.e. the father of the alleged victim has also agreed to the relations between the applicant and the alleged victim and he has also given notary affidavit, which is annexed as annexure no. 1 at page 10 of the paper book. He further added that now there is no dispute in between the parties and as the alleged victim was major at the time of incident therefore, allowing the further criminal proceedings would amount to harassment and would ruin the marital life of the applicant no. 1 and the alleged victim.
4. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the case of 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 submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment aforesaid. Therefore, submission is that the criminal proceedings against the present applicant may be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that as per the FIR, the the alleged victim was minor on the date of the incident and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.
6. Having heard learned counsel of the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the alleged victim was seventeen years of age as per the medical report and the agreement in between the complainant and the applicant no. 1, has been done and the parties have settled their dispute and it has been mentioned that they have performed marriage and they are living as husband and wife and also they are major.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. For a period of two months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance ofPOCSO Case No.81 of 2017 under sections 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station-Mahrua, District- Ambedkar Nagar, shall remain stayed so far as applicant are concerned.
11. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.
12. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicant, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same, forthwith.
Order Date :- 3.10.2023
Mayank
