Allahabad High Court
Dhananjay Priydarshi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 6 February, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7837
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12338 of 2023
Applicant :- Dhananjay Priydarshi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Smriti
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Awasthi
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard Shri Amit Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Smriti, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for private opposite party no.2/complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief(s):-
"For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying Petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be please to quash the entire proceeding of Charge Sheet no. 690/2022, dated 4.10.2022, Case Crime no.467/2022, Under Section 363,366,376 L.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.-Kotwali City, District Hardoi, "State Versus Dhananjay Priyadarshi" in pending before learned Special Judge POCSO Act District - Hardoi, contained in Annexure No.1 to the accompanying affidavit, in the interest of Justice.
It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present Petition under section 482 Cr. P.C., this Hon' ble may kindly be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the Charge Sheet no. 690/2022, dated 4.10.2022, Case Crime no. 467/2022, Under Section 363,366,376 I.P.C, and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.-Kotwali City, District- Hardoi, "State Versus Dhananjay Priyadarshi" in pending before learned Special Judge POCSO Act District Hardoi, contained in Annexure No. 1, in the interest of justice."
3. It is stated that applicant and victim/opposite party no.3 were in affair and victim/opposite party no.3 was inclined to marry the applicant and both were known to each other.
4. It is further stated that the relationship of victim/opposite party no.3 and applicant was not known to the family members of victim/opposite party no.3, who on 08.06.2022 on her own volition, without informing her family, left her parental house and accompanied the applicant to Haridwar, and therefore an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2, mother of victim/opposite party no.3, on 14.06.2022 registered as FIR/Case Crime No.0467/2022 making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. against one Ashu Thakur s/o Hawaldar Singh. As per this FIR, the victim/opposite party no.3, who was 17 years and 8 months old and a student of Class-XII, was enticed away byAshu Thakur s/o Hawaldar Singh on 08.06.2022.
5. It is further stated that according to the statement(s) of the victim recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the applicant and victim/opposite party no.3, aged about 18 years, were having affair and due to same she, on her own volition, left her house and accompanied the applicant to Haridwar where the applicant established physical relations with the victim/opposite party no.3 with her consent and thereafter the victim/opposite party no.3 solemnized marriage with applicant on 23.04.2023, on her own volition, in Arya Samaj Mandir, Hardoi. Thereafter the victim/opposite party no.3 and applicant appeared before the Registrar of Hindu Marriage, District Hardoi and based upon the document produced before the concerned authority the marriage certificate in terms of U.P. Hindu Marriage (Registration) Rules, 1973 was issued on 14.08.2023. The marriage certificate is annexed as Annexure No.8 to the application.
6. It is also stated that the victim/opposite party no.3 in her statements in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution case and the same is evident from the copy of the statement annexed as Annexures No.3 and 5 to the present application.
7. It is further stated that the medical examination of the victim was also carried and upon due medical examination the doctor opined that the victim, at the relevant point of time, was about 19 years old.
8. It is also stated that taking note of the date of birth indicated by opposite party no.2 the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.
9. It is also stated that the date of birth of victim, upon which the prosecution is relying, is doubtful, as according to FIR, the victim was 17 years old, but as per High School Marksheet of the victim/opposite party no.3 was born on 10.07.2004 and at the time of lodging of the FIR, she was about 19 years old and as per medicolegal report, the victim was found 18-19 years old, as such, taking note of the same as also that there is no material/evidence to establish the date of birth of victim/opposite party no.3 recorded in school records is correct and as such in view of the same and also the facts of the instant case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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.3 both.
11. It is further stated that presently the applicant and victim are living as husband and wife under one roof happily.
12. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter else entire matrimonial life of applicant and victim/opposite party no.3.
13. The victim/opposite party no.3 and informant/opposite party no.2 present before this Court supported the case of the applicant.
14. 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 no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in issue, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed.
15. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 6.2.2025
Anand/-
