Suraj vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1962 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Suraj vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 16 July, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40517
 
Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5556 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Suraj
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Nijam Ahamad
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Nijam Ahamad, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Diwakar Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashish Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

Short counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is taken on record.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 27.12.2021 along with entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.52 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.161 of 2021, under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bhiti, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the court of learned learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 26.11.2021 stating that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter (the opposite party no.3) aged about 15 years on 22.11.2021.

4. In the statement of the opposite party no.3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that she had willingly gone with the applicant and has married him. The medico legal examination report of the victim mentions no mark of injury or sign of use of force, but the victim was found minor.

5. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the opposite party no.3 stated that upon coming to know that she is minor the applicant dropped her back at the house of her parents.

6. After investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet for commission of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act on 27.12.2021 and the trial court took cognizance of the offence on 09.02.2022.

7. The opposite party no.2-complainant has been examined before the trial court as PW-1 and he did not support the prosecution case. The mother of the opposite party no.3 has been examined as PW-2 and the opposite party no.3 has been examined as PW-3 and both of them have been declared to be hostile.

8. In the application seeking quashing of the proceedings it has been stated that upon attaining majority the opposite party no.3 has married the applicant and presently she is having four months pregnancy. The opposite party no.3 has filed a counter affidavit on her behalf as well as the on behalf of her father (the complainant) admitting that she has married the applicant and supporting the prayer for quashing of proceedings.

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case where although victim was minor at the time of incident she categorically stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own freewill and upon coming to know that she is a minor the applicant dropped her back, the complainant and the victim's mother having supported the case before the trial court and the victim has married the applicant after attaining the age of majority and present she is pregnant, I am of the view that the continuance of proceedings against the applicant will result in persecution of the applicant as also of the complainant and the victim. In these circumstances it would be in the interest of justice the the proceedings against the applicant be quashed.

10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

11. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

12. In the case of Bahori Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Another 2024 SCC OnLine All 4596, this Court has examined the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1186, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531, Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030 and has culled out the following principles from the aforesaid judgments:

"27. ....... the inherent powers of the High Courts recognized by Section 482 Cr. P.C. are wide and can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings, but the power has to be exercised judiciously and consciously. The High Courts can exercise their jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law is clearly made out. Such powers ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind the nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society; the seriousness of the injury,if any, the voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim, the conduct of the accused persons and the other relevant considerations. Though the Courts should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there is sufficient evidence which may lead to proving the charges. The High Court can quash the proceedings even in cases where the parties have entered into a settlement after conviction for a heinous offence carrying a maximum punishment for life. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast rule restricting the powers of the High Court to do substantial justice, as a restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may lead to grave injustice."

13. In the case of K. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, an FIR under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 was registered alleging that the appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, which amounted to committing rape. He was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence. In appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the allegation against the appellant was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, whereas he had in fact married the prosecutrix and they had two children and they were being taken care of by the appellant and she was leading a happy married life. The prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. After taking into consideration these facts, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant in view of the subsequent events by observing that ?This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.? However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also expressed that the order shall not be treated as a precedent.

14. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned cases, the present application is allowed and the impugned charge sheet dated 27.12.2021 along with entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.52 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.161 of 2021, under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bhiti, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the court of learned learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar are hereby quashed.

.

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

Order Date :- 16.7.2025

Ram.