Suraj vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5700 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Suraj vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 March, 2025

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31639
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43657 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Suraj
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Pal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravindra Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Pal, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Hemant Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ravindra Yadav, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant- Suraj, who is a charge sheeted accused has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow present application and may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings in Case No.13692 of 2023 (State Vs. Suraj), under Section 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Shivrajpur, District Kanpur (arising out of Case Crime No.191 of 2022), pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division/Fast Track Court, Kanpur Dehat on the basis of compromise deed dated 26.11.2024 between the parties.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings in Case No.13692 of 2023 (State Vs. Suraj), under Section 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Shivrajpur, District Kanpur (arising out of Case Crime No.191 of 2022), pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division/Fast Track Court, Kanpur Dehat so that justice may be done, otherwise applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury."

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial before the court below in aforementioned sessions trial, however, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as have emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained now. As such, the present application is liable to be allowed by this Court. In furtherance, of aforesaid submission the learned counsel for applicant submits that criminal prosecution of applicant commenced with the lodging of the FIR dated 08.10.2022 by the first informant-/opposite party-2, Smt. Preeti and was registered as Case Crime No.191 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Dehat. According to the learned counsel for applicant subsequent to the aforesaid FIR, the applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 28.02.2023. Consequently, the prosecutrix became legally wedded wife of applicant. As such the prosecutrix started residing with the applicant as his legally wedded wife. The bona fide of the parties is evident from the fact that marriage of the parties has ben registered under the provisions of U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. Photo copy of the marriage Registration Certificate is on record as Annexure No.6 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application. On the above premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that once the marriage of the parties stands registered, therefore, there is a statutory presumption with regard to legal and valid marriage of the parties. It is further contended that from the aforesaid wedlock/cohabitation of applicant and prosecurix, two children namely Arohi (daughter) and Ayush (Son) were born. Their Birth Certificates have been brought on record and photo copies of the same are annexed at page 7 and 8 of the supplementary affidavit respectively. As per the said document, the applicant is shown as the father, whereas, the prosecutrix is shown as the mother. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that in view of the aforesaid subsequent developments the criminality if any, committed by applicant now stands washed off, therefore, in case, the impugned criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, then a happy family shall stand broken. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicant submits that present application is liable to be allowed.

5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 vehemently opposed the present application. Learned AGA submits that since the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716, no compromise can be entered into between the parties in matters relating to rape and sexual assault, therefore, the proceedings of above mentioned criminal case, cannot be quashed on the ground of subsequent development as urged by learned counsel for applicant.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Vimal Kumar Maurya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ravindra Yadav, the learned counsel representing prosecutrix first informant opposite party-2 submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. He, further, contends that it is now an admitted fact that applicant has solemnized marriage with prosecutrix and from the aforesaid wedlock two children have been born. He, therefore, urged that he cannot have any objection, in case, the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts.

7. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that subsequent to the FIR giving rise to the present criminal proceedings, the applicant has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 28.02.2023. Consequently, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant. The parties are, therefore, now residing together as husband and wife. From the aforesaid wedlock/cohabitation of applicant and prosecurix, two children namely Arohi (daughter) and Ayush (Son) were born. Their Birth Certificates have been brought on record. As per the said documents, the applicant is shown as the father, whereas, the prosecutrix is shown as the mother. The bona fide of the parties is further evident from the fact that marriage of the parties has been registered under the provisions of U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. As such, there is a statutory presumption with regard to legal and valid marriage of the parties. In view of the aforementioned subsequent developments that have been taken place, the criminality if any, committed by applicant now stands washed off. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. A happy family shall now stands broken in case, the impugned proceedings are allowed to continue.

8. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police 2022 SCC Online SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan 2022 SCC Online SC 433, wherein the Apex Court quashed the proceedings against the accused on the ground that he has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapnai (supra) is a short one therefore, the same is reproduced in it's entirety.

""1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix belongs to Valayar community, which is a most backward community in the State of Tamilnadu. He worksas a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him forcommitting rape 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. He was convicted after trial for committing the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur on 31.10.2018. The High Court, by an order dated 13.02.2019, upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that allegation against him was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her. He stated that, in fact, he married the prosecutrix and they have two children. 4. The appellant submitted that this Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ought to do complete justice and it could not be in the interest of justice to disturb the family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.

5. After hearing the matter for some time on 08th March, 2022, we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has categorically stated that she has two children and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life.

6. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the ground that 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. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him.

7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with maternal uncle.

8. For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

9. In case, the appellant does not take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can move this Court for modification of this Order."

9. The ratio laid down in aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the parties of present case, inasmuch as, applicant has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and from the said wedlock two children have been born. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. The trial shall only entail loss of time.

10. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

11. It is, accordingly, allowed.

12. The entire proceedings in Case No.13692 of 2023 (State Vs. Suraj), under Section 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Shivrajpur, District Kanpur (arising out of Case Crime No.191 of 2022), pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division/Fast Track Court, Kanpur Dehat, are, hereby, quashed.

13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.

Order Date :- 4.3.2025

S.A.