Allahabad High Court
Nazim And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 January, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2427
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32994 of 2024
Applicant :- Nazim And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mustaqeem Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Mustaqeem Ahmad, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and Ms. Anita Sigh, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicants-Nazim And Another, who are charge sheeted accused and prosecutrix respectively have 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 kindly be pleased to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 20.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act, District- Moradabad, as well as S.C. No. 639 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Nazim) arising out of case crime no. 210 of 2023 under section 363, 366, 376, LP.C. and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Dilari, District-Moradabad, pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act, District-Moradabad.
It is further prayed to stay the cognizance and summoning order dated 20.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act, District- Moradabad, as well as S.C. No. 639 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Nazim) arising out of case crime no. 210 of 2023 under section 363, 366, 376, I.P.C. and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Dilari, District-Moradabad, pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of the present case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
And/or to pass any such other further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper it the circumstance of the case. "
4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that subsequent to the FIR dated 30.07.2023 giving rise to present criminal proceedings, the prosecutrix i.e. applicant-2 has solemnized marriage (Nikah) with the accused applicant-1. As such, applicant-2 is the legally wedded wife of applicant-1. The parties are therefore, now residing together as husband and wife. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the criminality if any, committed by applicant-1 now stands washed off. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicants that once applicant-1 and the prosecutrix have solemnized marriage and are now living together as husband and wife, therefore, in case, the impugned criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, then a happy family shall stand broken. As such, no useful purpose shall be served to continue the criminal prosecution of applicant-1. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicants submits that present application is liable to be allowed.
5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be decided in terms of compromise if any, entered into by the parties. Since, applicant-1 is guilty of committing an offence which is not only illegal but also immoral, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant. However, he could not dislodge the equitable submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants in support of this application.
6. Ms. Anita Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 on the other hand, does not oppose the present application. She submits that since daughter of first informant opposite party-2 i.e. application-2 has solemnized marriage with applicant-1. Therefore, first informant is not willing to pursue the criminal prosecution of applicant-1. She, therefore, contends that she has no objection in case the present application is allowed.
7. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that applicant-1 is named and charge sheeted accused, whereas, applicant-2 is the prosecutrix. Subsequent to the FIR dated 30.07.2023 lodged by first informant opposite party-2 and giving rise to present criminal proceedings, the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with applicant-1. As such, the prosecutrix is now the legally wedded wife of applicant. Consequently, they are living together as husband and wife. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the criminality if any, committed by applicant-1 now stands washed off. The bona fide of accused applicant is further explicit from the fact that the prosecutrix has also filed her affidavit in support of this application. As such, the prosecutrix has joined the applicant in present application. On account of above, first informant opposite party-2 does not wish to pursue the criminal prosecution of applicant-1. On the above conspectus, this Court finds that in case the criminal prosecution of applicant-1 is allowed to continue, the same shall result in undue hardship to applicant. No useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant-1. A happy family shall now stands broken in case, the proceedings are allowed to continue. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police 2022 SCC Online SC 1056, since the judgment is a short one therefore, the same is reproduced in it's entirety.
8. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.
9. It is, accordingly, allowed.
10. The entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 639 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Nazim) arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 2023 under sections 363, 366, 376, I.P.C. and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Dilari, District-Moradabad, now pending in the Court of Special Judge POCSO Act, District- Moradabad, are, hereby, quashed.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 3.1.2025
Imtiyaz
