Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin.Secy. Home ... on 5 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13579
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2863 of 2024
Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s):-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.35 of 2017; State Versus Pradeep, arising out of Case Crime No.8 of 2017, under sections- 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, relating to Police Station- Aliganj, District- Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, and impugned chargesheet no.29/17, dated 17.4.2017, submitted by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner in aforesaid case crime number, as contained in Annexure no.1 to this petition, in the interest of law and justice."
3. While pressing the instant application, it is stated that the daughter of the informant (hereinafter referred as "Victim"), according to the medical opinion/certificate dated 06.04.2017, proved by Dr. P.N. Yadav (P.W.-4) was aged about 20 years when the FIR was lodged on 31.01.2017, registered as Case Crime No.0008/2017, at Police Station Aliganj, District-Ambedkar Nagar, making allegations against the applicant to attract the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.
4. It is stated that according to the FIR, the applicant enticed away the daughter of the informant, who is no more, and due to the said reason, his wife, who is the mother of the victim, has been impleaded as the opposite party no.2.
5. It is further stated that after lodging of the FIR, the statement of the victim was recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. A perusal of these statements of the victim, which has been annexed as Annexure No(s). 3 & 4 to the present application, respectively, would show that the victim, on her own volition, left her parental house and accompanied the applicant to Jalalpur where both stayed about fifteen days and solemnized marriage on 05.01.2017 and thereafter, on 16.01.2017 both started to live at Ghaziabad and there, both stayed in rented house as husband and wife. From these statements, it is also evident that the date of birth recorded in the school records of victim is 08.04.2000 and in this view of the matter, victim, at the time of alleged incident, was aged about 17 years and 8 months.
6. It is further stated that out of wedlock of the applicant and the victim (daughter of opposite party No.2) there are two children and the applicant and the victim along with their children are residing happily under one roof and enjoying the matrimonial life as also discharging their duties as parents and this fact can be deduced from the statement of the opposite party no. 2 recorded before the trial court as P.W.1 and this statement further indicates that the opposite party no.2 has not supported the story of the prosecution. The statement of the opposite party no.2 on record is extracted herein-under:
"दिनांक-09.12.2019
आज साक्षी गुड़िया देवी उम्र 60 वर्ष लगभग पत्नी स्व0 श्री रजितराम कार्य/पेशा ग्रहणी निवासिनी ग्राम आशोपुर पकवा थाना अलीगंज जिला अंबेडकर नगर को शपथ दिलाई गई तब उसने सशपथ बयान किया किः-
इस मुकदमे की पीड़िता कुमारी गायत्री देवी मेरी पुत्री है घटना के समय उसकी उम्र 16 वर्ष थी दिनांक- 12-12-2016 को समय रात 10:00 बजे शौच के लिए गई थी और वहां से लौटकर नहीं आई जब उसका पता नहीं चला तो मेरे पति ने थाना अलीगंज में दरखास्त देकर घटना की रिपोर्ट दर्ज कराई थी मेरे पति रजितराम की मृत्यु आज से लगभग 5 माह पहले हो गई थी गवाह को उसका तहरीर कागज संख्या-04-अ/.... जो शामिल मिसिल है दिखाया गया व पढ़ कर सुनाया गया उसने अपने पति रजितराम के हस्ताक्षर को देखकर तस्दीक किया जिस पर प्रदर्श-क-1 डाला गया मुलजिम प्रदीप जो मेरे गांव के बगल का है मेरी लड़की को बहला फुसला कर ले गया था घटना के बाबत दरोगा जी ने मेरा बयान लिया था मुलजिम प्रदीप पहले से शादीशुदा है मुझे इसकी जानकारी नहीं है घटना वाले दिन मैं अभियुक्त प्रदीप यादव को अपनी पुत्री से बातचीत करते हुए नहीं देखा था और ना ही मैंने उसको अपने घर के आसपास घूमते हुए देखा था।
इस स्तर पर गवाह को पक्ष....... घोषित करने की अभियोजन द्वारा प्रार्थना की गई।"
7. It is further stated that the statement of the alleged victim recorded before the trial Court would also indicate that the applicant has not committed any crime. The statement of the victim, on record, is also extracted herein-under:
"दिनांक-10.02.2021
गायत्री यादव पुत्री राजित राम उम्र लगभग 25 वर्ष निवासिनी ग्राम आशापुर पकवा थाना अलीगंज जिला अंबेडकर नगर ने सशपथ बयान किया किः-
मेरा नाम गायत्री है दिनांक 12-12-2016 को समय 10:00 बजे रात में मैं शौच के लिए गई थी वहां से इस मुकदमे के अभियुक्त प्रदीप को बुलाई थी मैं उनके साथ दिल्ली गई मैं अपने घर वालों को नहीं बताया मुकदमा मेरे पिताजी ने लिखवाया है मेरे पिता की मृत्यु-10 जून 2019 को हुई इस मुकदमे के अभियुक्त प्रदीप के साथ मैंने शादी कर ली है मैं प्रदीप के साथ पति-पत्नी के रूप में रह रही हूं मेरी जन्म तिथि दिनांक-8.4.2000 है मैं हाई स्कूल पास हूं हाई स्कूल मार्कशीट के अनुसार मेरी जन्म तिथि 8.4.2000 है पीडिता को 164 सीआरपीसी का बयान पढ़कर सुनाया गया जिसको देखकर पीडिता ने कहा कि यह बयान उसने मजिस्ट्रेट के समक्ष दिया था जिस पर मेरा फोटो है प्रदीप के साथ में अपनी मर्जी से गई थी उसने कोई जबरदस्ती मेरे साथ नहीं की बयान 164 दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता पर प्रदर्श-क-2 डाला गया।
इस स्तर पर अभियोजन द्वारा गवाह को पक्ष द्रोही घोषित करने की याचना की गई।
अनुमति दी जाती है।"
द्वारा अभियोजन।
पीड़िता को 161 का बयान पढ़कर सुनाया गया अपने बयान का समर्थन किया उसने दरोगा जी को यह बयान दिया था पीड़िता ने अपनी जन्मतिथि हाई स्कूल के अंक पत्र/प्रवेश पत्र के अनुसार 08.04.2000 है घटना दिसंबर 2016 की है पीड़िता को 164 सीआरपीसी का बयान पढ़कर सुनाया गया पीड़िता ने बयान का समर्थन किया प्रदीप के साथ में पति-पत्नी के रूप में रह रही हूं प्रदीप से दो बच्चे की है मुकदमा मेरे पिताजी ने लिखाया था मेरे पिताजी माताजी नहीं चाहते थे कि मैं प्रदीप के साथ रहूं यह कहना गलत है कि प्रदीप मुझे भाग कर ले गए तथा बुरा काम किया है यह भी कहना गलत है कि मैं प्रदीप के साथ पति-पत्नी के रूप में रह रही हूं इसलिए बात नही बता रही हूं।
जिरह बचाव पक्ष।
परिवार रजिस्टर प्रतिलिपि वर्ष 2001-2002 के अनुसार 6 वर्ष की उम्र लिखी गई है जो मेरी उम्र के संबंध में है घटना के दिन जब मैं प्रदीप के साथ पकड़ी गई तो मेरे माता-पिता ने मुझे मारपीट कर घर से निकाल दिया घटना से एक महीने बाद तक हम लोग गोविंद साहब जलालपुर अकबरपुर रहे उसके हम गाजियाबाद गए 15 जनवरी 2017 को हमने शादी किया पुलिस के प्रदीप के घर वालों को परेशान करने लगी तब हम लोग वापस आ गए प्रदीप ने मेरे साथ जोर जबरदस्ती जबरदस्ती कभी नही की घटना के समय मेरी उम्र 20-21 साल थी।
बयान मेरे द्वारा लिखा गया।
दिनांक- 10.02.2021
ह० -- गायत्री
ह० अ० "
8. It is stated that the FIR which is the basis of the pending criminal proceedings was lodged by the husband of the opposite party no. 2 (father of the alleged victim ) only on account of the fact that he was not recognizng the relationship of the applicant and the victim.
9. It is further stated that taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the age of the victim, date of birth indicated in the school records i.e. 08.04.2000, which is not correct, the indulgence in the matter is required, else the matrimonial life of the applicant and the victim, as also the future of the children would be ruined.
10. It is also stated that in so far as the date of birth is concerned, i.e. 08.04.2000, the same is liable to be ignored in view of the fact that as per medical opinion the victim at the relevant point of time was found to be about twenty years old and in the copy of Parivar register filed before the trial court of the year 2001-2002 her age has been shown as 6 years and to establish that the date of birth indicated in the document available with the prosecution is correct, there is no material/evidence with the prosecution and further that the prosecution has not put any question to the PW 1 with regard to the date of birth of the victim entered into the school records and as such in these circumstances, as also the fact that the applicant and the victim are living together as husband and wife with their children, the benefit of the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including in the case(s) of 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 and children.
11. 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 and the future of their children would be ruined.
12. 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 State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, and also the observations made by Apex Court 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 given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2017 (State Versus Pradeep), arising out of Case Crime No.8 of 2017, under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, relating to Police Station- Aliganj, District- Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, quoted above, are liable to be quashed.
13. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. The proceedings in issue, as quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.
14. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 5.3.2025
ML/-
