Allahabad High Court
Hasan Mohammad Alias Sirtaj vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. ... on 4 February, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7193
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11605 of 2024
Applicant :- Hasan Mohammad Alias Sirtaj
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arshad Hafeez Khan
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. On being pointed out, learned counsel for the applicant states that he may be permitted to implead complainant as opposite party no.5 during the course of the day. Prayer as sought is acceded.
2. Shri Arshad Hafeez Khan, Advocate, who is representing the complainant/opposite party no.5, has also put in appearance on behalf of newly impleaded opposite party no.5 and filed his Vakalatnama as also the counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.5, which are taken on record.
3. Applicant, victim/opposite party no.2 and informant/opposite party no.5 are present before this Court.
4. The applicant, victim/opposite party no.2 and informant/opposite party no.5 have been identified by the counsel concerned.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 and gone through the record.
6. The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief:-
"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding in Special Case no.281/2023, Crime No.862/2022, U/s 363/366/323/506/376 IPC and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station ? Kotwali, District : Barabanki as well as impugned charge sheet no.832/2022 dated 29.11.2022 contained in Annexure no.1 to this petition."
7. It is stated that complainant/opposite party no.5 being annoyed with the relationship of applicant and victim/opposite party no.2, who at the relevant point of time was 20 years old, made a written complaint making allegations therein, in nutshell, that the applicant had enticed away the daughter of the informant and she was also forced and beaten by the applicant to solemnize marriage with him and according to this written complaint one Abdul Khalik @ Kale Guddu, uncle of the applicant, and Faqeer Mohd. @ Gulzar, father of the applicant, were also involved in the crime as alleged in the FIR and based upon the allegations levelled the FIR was lodged as FIR No.0872/2022 at P.S. Kotwali, District - Barabanki, under Sections 366, 323, 506 I.P.C. on 25.08.2022.
8. It is further stated that the story of the prosecution as indicated in the FIR is completely false and concocted as would appear from the statement(s) of the victim/opposite party no.2 recorded in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
9. In continuation it is stated that according to the statement(s) given by the victim/opposite party no.2 before the Investigating Officer the case against the applicant would be made out. However, the statement of the victim made before the concerned court would indicate that the victim/opposite party no.2, on her own volition, left her parental house and accompanied the applicant to Nepal where she, as per Muslim customs, solemnized marriage with the applicant and thereafter the physical relations were established, on her consent, by the applicant with the victim/opposite party no.2.
10. It is further stated that at the time of incident, the victim was aged about 17 years 3 month's old as per date of birth indicated in the school marksheet, which was not correctly recorded as there is no evidence to support/establish the fact that the age of the victim recorded in the school records is correct and in view of the facts of the instant case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including in the case(s) of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397, shall be extended in favour of the applicant and the victim/opposite party no.2 both.
11. It is also stated that presently the applicant and victim/opposite party no.2 are living as husband and wife, which can be deduced from the facts pleaded in the present application.
12. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter, as otherwise, entire matrimonial life of applicant and victim/opposite party no.2 would be ruined.
13. Averments made in counter affidavit filed on behalf of complainant/opposite party no.5 also supports the case of the applicant.
14. The victim/opposite party no.2 present before this Court also supported the case of the applicant.
15. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra), Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which, inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, and also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.862/2022, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.
16. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 4.2.2025
Anand/-
