Allahabad High Court
Shivam Alias Shivam Nishad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 7 January, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1158
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11549 of 2024
Applicant :- Shivam Alias Shivam Nishad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Vardhan Srivastava,Malik Meraj Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Pratap Singh,Pradeep Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. In terms of the order of this Court, the applicant and the opposite party no. 2/complainant are present before this Court, who have been identified by Shri Jai Vardhan Srivastava, Advocate and Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, appearing for the said parties.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present application has been filed with following main prayer:
"to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 24.05.2023 bearing Charge Sheet No. 01/2023, relating to Case Crime No. 114 of 2023, Under Section 363, 366 I.P.C., 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, 16 & 17 POSCO Act, Police Station- Chhapia, District-Gonda, as well entire proceeding of the Case No. 1725/2023 (State Versus Shivam Nishad) pending in Court of Additional District Judge/ FTC-1, Gonda, as contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to this petition in the interest of justice."
4. It is stated that the opposite party no. 2/complainant, being annoyed with the relationship of the applicant and the victim, who on her own volition left her parental house on 14.04.2023 and accompanied the applicant to District - Ayodhya, lodged an FIR on 14.04.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 114 of 2023 at Police Station - Chhapia, District - Gonda, under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC"), Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, 1989 and Sections 16 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "POCSO Act").
5. It is also stated that after due investigation in the matter, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, 1989 and Sections 16 and 17 of POCSO Act in Case Crime No. 114 of 2023 (Supra) against the applicant.
6. It is also stated that during investigation the statement(s) of the victim in terms of Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., respectively were recorded. From a perusal of these statements, it is apparent that the applicant and the victim were having affair and the victim was adamant to solemnize the marriage with the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 and other family members were opposing the same and therefore, she left her parental house on her own volition and accompanied the applicant therefrom to Ayodhya.
7. It is further stated that after lodging of FIR, with the consent of opposite party no. 2/complainant and others, the marriage of the applicant and the victim was solemnized the marriage on 23.11.2023 and the same is apparent from the copy of invitation card annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the application.
8. It is also stated that on the issue of age, the mark sheet/document on which the prosecution is placing reliance is liable to be ignored in view of the aforesaid facts of the case and as as also that to establish/prove the fact that the date of birth i.e. 08.07.2005 indicated in the mark-sheet is genuine/correct there is no evidence available with the prosecution and in fact date of birth in the mark-sheet is not correct 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 victim.
9. On being asked, the opposite party no. 2/complainant has not disputed the facts aforesaid and stated before this Court that he does not want to continue with the proceedings in issue and further, according to his statement the marriage of his daughter and the applicant was solemnized on 23.11.2023 with his consent.
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 victim and the applicant 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 the applicant and the victim 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. 114 of 2023, quoted in prayer clause,, 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 :- 7.1.2025
Mohit Singh/-
