Rajjab Ali And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2720 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajjab Ali And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko ... on 30 July, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44405
 
Court No. - 15
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6085 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Rajjab Ali And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sheikh Mohammad Ali
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Sheikh Mohammad Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hans Raj Verma, the learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Ramesh Gupta, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 (the complainant and the victim respectively) and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.148/2018 arising out of Case Crime No.150/2018 under Sections 363/366/376D IPC and Sectin 5/6 of POCSO Act relating to Police Station- Payagpur, District- Bahriach.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No.2 on 07.06.2018 stating that some unknown persons had enticed away her daughter aged 15 years on 05.06.2018.

4. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that the applicant had taken her to Lucknow and he committed the misdeed against her.

5. The victim declined to under-go medico-legal examination report and her ossification test reveals her age to be about 18 years. As per the educational certificates, the date of birth of the victim is 15.05.2001.

6. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim alleged that all the three persons had raped her.

7. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge-sheet dated 23.10.2018 against all the accused persons for commission of offences under Section 363/366/376D IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences on 22.11.2018.

8. The applicant No.3 had filed an Application u/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.2521 of 2019 and by means of an order dated 05.04.2019, it was provided that no coercive action shall be taken against him.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that after the aforesaid interim order, the proceedings of the trial have not proceeded any further.

10. The opposite party No.2 has filed a short counter affidavit stating that she has no grievance against the applicants and she does not want the prosecute them. She further stated that she has got married and she is a mother of a daughter aged one and a half year. She has settled her dispute outside the Court and she has supported the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.

11. The learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 have supported the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.

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. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim alleged that the applicant No.1 took her to Lucknow, kept her in a hotel and committed the misdeed for two days, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she alleged that she had been taken to Lucknow by all the three accused persons, after administering some medicine to her due to which she had fallen unconscious and after she regained consciousness on the following day and escaped and in this statement she alleged that all the three accused persons raped her; the victim has declined to undergo medico-legal examination and besides her statement, there is no material to establish the allegation of commission of rape and the victim herself has resiled from her statement in the counter affidavit filed by her; the victim has stated that she has got married, is a mother of a daughter and she does not want any proceedings to continue against the applicants, I am of the view that continuance of criminal proceedings in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case, will result in persecution of not only the applicants but also of the complainant and it might result in disruption of a peaceful and happy matrimonial life of the victim.

15. Keeping in view the pecuniary facts of the case, I am of the view that in the interest of justice demand that the proceedings of the present case be quashed.

16. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.148/2018 arising out of Case Crime No.150/2018 under Sections 363/366/376D IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act relating to Police Station- Payagpur, District- Bahriach are quashed

.

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

Order Date :- 30.7.2025

-Amit K-