Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Alias Rajesh Kumar Sharma ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 14 February, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9964
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1426 of 2025
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Alias Rajesh Kumar Sharma And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Yadav,Anoop Vajpayee
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Vakalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party No(s). 2 by Shri Arvind Yadav, Advocate, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s), learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No(s). and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief (s):-
"That For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of the Session Trial No. 328 of 2023 "State Versus Rajesh Kumar and others" arising out of Case Crime No. 394 of 2022 Under Sections 376/506 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. 1st, Faizabad as well as impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 27.1.2023 and impugned charge sheet dated 5.1.2023 contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to the accompanying affidavit whereby the charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken Under Section 376/506 1.P.C. against the petitioner no.1 and Under Section 506 against the petitioner no.2 to 6 on the basis of compromise, in the interest of justice."
It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.10771/2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 29.11.2024, referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.
It also appears that the aforesaid order was passed after considering the fact that victim/opposite party No.2, whose marriage was broken, was known to the applicant No.1 namely Rajesh Kumar alias Rajesh Kumar Sharma and on 10.04.2021 he stated before her maternal uncle that he loves her and wants to marry her and thereafter the victim/opposite party No.2 remained with the applicant No.1 at Bareilly and on the assurance of solemnizing marriage the applicant No.1 established physical relations with the victim/opposite party No.2 and she became pregnant and at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. the period of pregnancy was 17 weeks and therefore the case of the applicants is squarely covered by the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181; Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032 and being so the proceedings in issue are liable to be interfered by this Court.
In continuation, it further appears that for the purposes of passing of the order dated 29.11.2024, in application U/S 482 No.10771 of 2024 this court also took note of the fact that applicant No.1 and victim/Opp.Party No.2 solemnized marriage on 31.04.2021 i.e. prior to lodging of the F.I.R., as apparent from the marriage certificate dated 22.12.2022, annexed as Annexure No.4 as also that out of the wedlock of applicant No.1 and victim/opposite party No.2 a female child was born on 8th April, 2023.
The Court for passing of the order dated 29.11.2024, indicated above, had also taken note of the fact that applicant No.2/Vijay Pal, applicant No.3/Anil Kumar, applicant No.4/Jokhu Ram, applicant No.5/Ranjeet Kumar and applicant No.6/Ram Laxman are Jeths, father-in-law, close relative and Foofa of applicant No.1.
Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations on the issue related to establishing physical relationship on assurance of marriage made in the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar (supra); Deepak Gulati (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar (supra), this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court in view of the aforesaid including the nature of relationship between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2/victim as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the future prospects of the opposite party no. 2/victim would be affected 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, as also 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. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 328 of 2023 "State Versus Rajesh Kumar and others" arising out of Case Crime No. 394 of 2022, Under Sections 376/506 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. 1st, Faizabad, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.
Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 14.2.2025
ML/-
