Neeraj Kumar Manjhi vs State Of Up And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4700 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Neeraj Kumar Manjhi vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 6 February, 2025

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17699
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37499 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Manjhi
 
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Yadav,Seema Kumari
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Rahul Yadav, the learned counsel representing victim-opposite party-5.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant-Neeraj Kumar Manjhi, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No.267 of 2023 (State Vs Neeraj Kumar Manjhi) pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act, Allahabad arising out of case crime No.360 of 2022 u/s 363, 366, 376, 328 I.P.C. and section 5/6 POCSO Act as well as charge sheet dated 15.02.2023 submitted in case crime No.360 of 2022 u/s 363, 366, 376, 328 I.P.C. and section 5/6 POCSO Act Police Station Shankargarh. District Prayagraj and also quash the summoning order dated 14.09.2023 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act, Allahabad in the aforesaid case.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Special Session Trial No.267 of 2023 pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act, Allahabad arising out of case crime No.360 of 2022 u/s 363, 366, 376, 328 I.P.C. and section 5/6 POCSO Act as well as summoning order dated 14.09.2023 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act, Allahabad in the aforesaid case.

And or pass such other and further order may deem fit and proper, otherwise the Applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

4. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. submits that notice of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been served upon first informant-opposite party-2 on 31.10.2024. However, in spite of service of notice, neither any counter affidavit has been filed by first informant-opposite party-2 nor anyone has put in appearance on his behalf to oppose this application, even in revised call.

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as have emerged on record, the present application is liable to be allowed.

6. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to the FIR dated 02.12.2022, lodged by first informant-opposite party-2 Guddu Nishad (brother of the prosecutrix), the prosecutrix solemnized marriage with applicant on 15.12.2022. As such, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. In view of above, the prosecutrix started residing with the applicant as his legally wedded wife. The marriage of the parties has also been registered under the provisions of the U.P. Registration of Marriage Rules, 2017. Photocopy of the marriage registration certificate has been brought on record as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that since the marriage of the parties has been registered, therefore, there is a legal presumption regarding valid marriage of the parties. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that from the aforesaid wedlock of the prosecutrix with the applicant, a son namely Riyansh was born. The birth certificate of the child is on record as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed by the victim opposite party-5. As per the said certificate, the applicant Neeraj Kumar Manjhi is shown as the father, whereas the prosecutrix is shown as the mother. The bona-fides of the parties is further evident from the fact that the prosecutrix has joined the present proceedings by filing an affidavit supporting the present application. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicant submits that in view of the subsequent developments that have taken place, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant stands washed of. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In case, the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. contends that since the prosecutrix was a child within the meaning of the term 'child' as defined in the POCSO Act on the date of occurrence, therefore, the subsequent development, if any, will not wiped out the criminality committed by applicant. He, therefore, contends that no indulgence be granted by this Court in present application. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage.

8. Mr. Rahul Yadav, the learned counsel representing victim-opposite party-5 submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. He submits that since the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the applicant, therefore, first informant-opposite party-2 does not wish to pursue the criminal prosecution of applicant.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Rahul Yadav, the learned counsel representing victim-opposite party-5 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the criminal prosecution of applicant commenced when an FIR dated 02.12.2022, was lodged by first informant-opposite party-2 Guddu Nishad (brother of the prosecutrix). However, subsequent to the aforesaid FIR, the prosecutrix solemnized marriage with applicant on 15.12.2022. Consequently, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant-1. By reason of above, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. The bona-fide of the parties is further evident from the fact that marriage of the parties has been registered under the provisions of U.P. Registration of Marriage Rules, 2017. Photo copy of the marriage registration certificate has been brought on record as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. In view of the registration of marriage of the parties, there is a legal presumption regarding validity and legality of the marriage solemnized by the parties. In view of the subsequent development that have taken place, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant-1 now stands washed of. From the aforesaid wedlock, a child namely Riyansh was born. As per the birth certificate of the child, copy of which is on record as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed by the victim/opposite party-5, applicant is shown as the father, whereas the prosecutrix is shown as the mother. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In case, the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.

10. At this stage, reference be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings on account of subsequent development. The judgment is a short one, therefore, the same is reproduced in it's entirety:-

"1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix belongs to Valayar community, which is a most backward community in the State of Tamilnadu. He works as a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him for committing rape under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was convicted after trial for committing the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur on 31.10.2018. The High Court, by an order dated 13.02.2019, upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that allegation against him was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her. He stated that, in fact, he married the prosecutrix and they have two children.

4. The appellant submitted that this Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ought to do complete justice and it could not be in the interest of justice to disturb the family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.

5. After hearing the matter for some time on 08th March, 2022, we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has categorically stated that she has two children and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life.

6. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him.

7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle.

8. For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

9. In case, the appellant does not take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can move this Court for modification of this Order."

11. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

12. It is, accordingly, allowed.

13. The entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Kumar Manjhi), arising out of Case Crime No. 360 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 328 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Shankargarh, District-Prayagraj now pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Allahabad are, hereby, quashed.

14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.

Order Date :- 6.2.2025

Vinay