Allahabad High Court
Atul @ Kali vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:18576
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34813 of 2023
Applicant :- Atul @ Kali
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Short Counter Affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri P.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2, Shri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State/opposite parties and perused the record.
3. The instant application u/s 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant praying to the quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 27.03.2023, cognizance order dated 01.04.2023 as well as entire criminal proceeding of S.C. No. 351 of 2023 (State v. Atul @ Kali), arising out of Case Crime No. 362 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Ajeetmal, District- Auraiya pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Auraiya,
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 12.08.2020, an FIR was lodged by the father of the victim under Sections 363, 366 IPC alleging that the applicant had kidnapped his daughter. After investigation, on 27.03.2023, a charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant u/s 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. He further submits that the applicant has married the victim and the victim is living as legally wedded wife, and out of marital wedlock, a child was born who is one and a half years old and they are happily living together. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to harass and pressurize the applicant. In fact, no such incident has taken place. The entire case was filed by the father of the victim as he was not happy with the current marriage.
5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that he has no objection if the present proceedings are quashed as the victim is happily married and staying with the applicant along with their child.
6. This is a clear case of the dark face of our society. Even today, when children who marry on their own, their parents under their family and societies pressure do not approve the marriage and go to the extent of filing F.I.R. against the boy.
7. The court after hearing the parties, records its deepest anguish, whereby this social menace is deep-rooted that even after 75 years of independence, we are fighting the cases with his opponents on this score only.
8. This is the greatest impediment in our society but the requirement of law is that when both the parties have agreed and now they are happily residing as husband and wife with their small kid, there cannot be any impediment in accepting this marriage in the light of 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.
9. The Apex Court in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M (2018) 16 SCC 368, decided on April 9, 2018, held as under:
"74. The principles which underlie the exercise of the jurisdiction of a court in a habeas corpus petition have been reiterated in several decisions of the Court. In Gian Devi v Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi31, a three-judge Bench observed that where an individual is over eighteen years of age, no fetters could be placed on her choice on where to reside or about the person with whom she could stay:"7. Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter." (emphasis supplied)
10. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court manifests that the Apex Court has consistently respected the liberty of an individual who has attained the age of majority.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the applicant and the victim are living together happily as husband and wife, no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the applicant, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.
12. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the impugned charge-sheet dated 27.03.2023, cognizance order dated 01.04.2023 as well as entire criminal proceeding of S.C. No. 351 of 2023 (State v. Atul @ Kali), arising out of Case Crime No. 362 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Ajeetmal, District- Auraiya pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Auraiya are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 1.2.2024
Rama Kant
