Allahabad High Court
Brajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 9 January, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1598
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11932 of 2024
Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Srikant Jaiswal,Rajat Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate alongwith Vakalatnama on behalf of private opposite party(s) in the Court today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Suryadeep, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P.,Sri Prashant Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the private opposite party(s) and gone through the record.
In view of the facts of the case, the notice to the private opposite party No. 3 is dispensed with.
The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief:-
"For the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 27.04.2018, as well as Charge sheet No.01/2018, dated 15.04.2018, Under Section-363/366/376 IPC and 3/4 Pocso Act, at Police Station-Gazipur, District- Lucknow "state versus Brajesh Kumar" in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."
Applicant/Brajesh Kumar and opposite party No.2/victim are present before this Court. The applicant has been identified by Sri Suryadeep, learned counsel for the applicant and opposite party No.2/victim has been identified bySri Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
It is stated that applicant and victim/opposite party No. 2 were having affair and victim/opposite party No. 2 was inclined to marry him and both were known to each other.
It is further stated that the relationship of victim/opposite party No. 2 and applicant was not acknowledged/accepted by the family members of victim/opposite party No. 2 and therefore an FIR was lodged by the opposite party No. 3, mother of victim, on 03.09.2017 registered as FIR No. 0705/2017 making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 363. As per this FIR, the victim used to cook food in the house of one M.R. Chaudhary, who told that the victim, who was 14 years old at the time of incident, is missing since 14.00 hours of 01.09.2017.
As regards the date of birth of victim, as per the case of prosecution itself, upon which the prosecution is relying, is itself doubtful, as, according to Aadhar Card, the victim was found 14 years old and as perschool records, the victim was found 15 years old and as per medicolegal report, the victim was found 17 years old, as such, taking note of the same as also that there is no authentic proof to establish the date of birth of victim/opposite party No. 2 recorded in school records as also various pronouncements on the issue related to determination of age, the victim/opposite party No. 2 is liable to be considered as major at the time of incident.
It is also stated that in so far as age of victim/opposite party No. 2 indicated in the school records is concerned, the same was not correctly recorded and there is no evidence to support/establish the age of the victim recorded in the school records and in view of 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 opposite party no.5/victim both.
It is also stated that presently the applicant and victim/opposite party No. 2 are living as husband and wife alongwith their minors namely Khushi, aged about 4 years, Prachi, aged about 3 years, and Aayansh, aged about 3 months, which can be deduced from the facts pleaded in the present application.
It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter, as otherwise, entire matrimonial life of applicant and victim/opposite party No. 2 as also future of their minors would be ruined.
Averments made in short counter affidavit filed on behalf of victim/opposite party No. 2 also supports the aforesaid. The relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder:-
"2. That applicant and deponent were love in affection to each other and want to marry but opposite party no.2 not allow them due to this reason they leave their parents house on 01.09.2017 and got married in year 2019 as per Hindu Custom in the temple.
3. That deponent has left her parental house on her own volition on account of the unpleasant and disturbing circumstances created by her father, at that time she was about 17 year and married to applicant with her free will in year 2019 when she became 19 years and she also been blessed with three children namely Khushi aged about 4 years, Prachi aged about 3 years and Aayansh aged about 3 months and she is living happily and enjoying her married life with applicant. The birth certificate of the children is annexed as Annexure No.-SA-1 to this affidavit."
The victim/opposite party No. 2 present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune.
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 Suhana (supra) 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 the ends of substantial justice, the proceedings based upon the settlement between the parties can be quashed, 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 would be ruined as also the future of their minors would be ruined, 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 qua the applicant.
Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 9.1.2025
Arun/-
