Allahabad High Court
Chandrika Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 6 January, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:697
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8683 of 2024
Applicant :- Chandrika Prasad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Mani Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawan Kumar
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard Shri Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Shri Pawan Kumar, learnd consel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 i.e. victim and complainant, respectively.
2. The present application has been filed with following main prayer:
"that the criminal proceedings of Criminal case/Trial no. 34 of 2015; State Versus Chandrika Prasad pending in the court of Additional Session Judge (POCSO Act), Ambedkar Nagar under section 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act relating to Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar along with Summoning order dated 03.06.2015 may kindly be quashed in terms of settlement/compromise dated 03.09.2024, in the interest of justice."
3. It is stated that the opposite party no. 3/informant, being annoyed with the relationship of the applicant and the opposite party no. 2/victim, who on her own volition left her parental house on 21.10.2013 and accompanied the applicant to District - Lucknow, lodged an FIR on 12.01.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 4 of 2014 at Police Station - Hanswar, District - Ambedkar Nagar, under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") making allegations therein to attract the offence under Sections 363, 363 IPC against the applicant/Chandrika Prasad.
4. It is also stated that after due investigation in the matter, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Case Crime No. 4 of 2014 (Supra) against the applicant.
5. It is also stated that during investigation the statement(s) of the victim under Section(s) 161 and 164, respectively were recorded. From a perusal of these statements, it is apparent that the applicant and the opposite party no. 2/victim were having affair and the opposite party no. 2/victim was adamant to solemnize the marriage with the applicant and the opposite party no. 3 and the family members were opposing the same and therefore, she left her parental house on her own volition and accompanied the applicant therefrom to Lucknow and at Lucknow, the applicant and the opposite party no. 2/victim solemnized the marriage.
6. It is also stated that out of wedlock of the applicant and the opposite party no. 2/victim, there are three children namely Anshika, Anushka and Chandrika, who were born on 24.08.2014, 03.11.2017 and 01.09.2013, respectively, which is evident from paragraph 5 of the short coutner affidavit filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, sworn by the opposite party no. 2/victim.
7. It is also stated that the opposite party no. 2/victim was medically examined on 16.02.2015 and upon due examination, the doctor assessed the age of the opposite party no. 2/victim as eighteen years.
8. It is also stated that on the issue of age, the document on which the prosecution is placing reliance is liable to be ignored in view of the aforesaid facts of the case as also that the said document relates to Class X and the opposite party no. 2/victim before the Court concerned while making statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she is Class X passed and further, the prosecution has no evidence to establish that the date of birth i.e. 07.12.1996 was correctly mentioned in the marksheet of Class X and as such taking note of these facts of the 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 opposite party no.2/victim both.
9. It is also stated that before the trial Court, the complainant and the opposite party no. 2/victim have not supported the story of the prosecution. According to the statement of opposite party no. 2/victim before the trial Court, her date of birth has not been correctly indicted in the school records.
10. It is also stated that in view of the aforesaid, the proceedings in issue against the applicant is liable to interfered/set aside/quashed else matrimonial life of opposite party no. 2/victim and the applicant as also the three children would be ruined.
11. 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 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 as also taking note of the nature of dispute/crime and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of opposite party no. 2/victim and the applicant as also the future of three children would be ruined and further, that in the given facts of the case chances of conviction are extremely bleak, 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 arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. 4 of 2014, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.
12. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance forthwith.
Order Date :- 6.1.2025
Mohit Singh/-
