Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 ... on 6 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13864
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2088 of 2025
Applicant :- Santosh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla, Advocate alongwith Vakalatnama on behalf of victim/opposite party No. 2 in the Court today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
In view of the facts of the case, the notice to the informant is dispensed with.
The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief:-
"?. ?? ?? ?????? ????? ????????? ?????? ????/??? ???? ??? ???? ?????????, ????? ??0 1, ???? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ??? ??.??. ??. 708/2018 (????? ???? ????? ?????), ??.??.??. ??. 708/2018 ???????? ???? 376, 504, 506, 313 ??.?.??. ? 3/4 ?????? ????, ???? ???, ???? ???? ?? ???????? ????????? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????"
Applicant and victim/opposite party No. 2 are present before the Court, who have been identified by their respective counsel.
It is stated that at the time of lodging of FIR i.e. FIR No. 0156 dated 04.05.2018 at Police Station- Mall, District- Lucknow, under Sections- 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act by the opposite party No. 3, the victim/opposite party No. 2 was an adult, though, in the FIR, the age of the victim/opposite party No. 2 has been indicated as 14 years and the victim herself indicated her age as 17 years in her statement recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is for the reason that before the trial court, the informant/opposite party No. 3 with regard to the age of victim stated that "????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??-?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???" and in this regard, the victim before the trail court has also stated that "?????? 4.5.2018 ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???"
It is further stated that the victim and applicant were in affair and this relationship was not acceptable to the informant and therefore making various allegations, she made a complaint at Police Station- Mall, District- Lucknow indicating therein the age of victim/opposite party No. 2 as 14 years and based upon the same, an FIR No. 0156 was lodged under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act.
It is further stated that a bare perusal of the statements of victim/opposite party No. 2 recorded in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. annexed as Annexure Nos. 5 & 6, respectively, to the instant application, would indicate that the applicant never tried to threaten the victim/opposite party No. 2 and he never committed any crime and applicant and victim/opposite party No. 2 were in affair and physical relations were established between them with the consent of the victim, who at that relevant point of time was major.
Further submission is that after lodging of FIR, the applicant and victim solemnized marriage on 27.11.2019. This fact can be deduced from Annexure No. 7 to the instant application, which is marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Temple situated at Aliganj, Lucknow.
It is also stated that out of the wedlock of the applicant and victim, there is one female child born on 24.08.2020 and one male child born on 23.10.2021 and this fact is evident from the copy of birth certificates of minors annexed as Annexure Nos. 9 to the instant application.
It is also stated that the informant has already been examined before the trial court, wherein, she has stated that the FIR was lodged as the victim was against her wishes, though, in examination-in-chief, to some extent, she supported the story of prosecution.
It is further stated that a perusal of the statement of victim/opposite party No. 2 made before the trial court would indicate that she supported the case of the applicant. The statement of victim made before the trial court being relevant is extracted hereunder:-
"?????? 19.12.22 ?????? ????? D/o ???? ??????? ?? ?????? 26.5.22 ?? ??? ???? ???? - ??? ???????? ????? ?? ??? 2015 ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? 4.5.2018 ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? 164 Cr.P. C. ? 161 Cr.P.C. ?? ???? ???? ????? ? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ? ?? ??????, ?????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?????? 27.11.2019 ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???? 164 Cr.P.C ? 161 Cr.P.C. ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? 4.5.2018 ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???
???? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ????
X---X---X
???? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? 2015 ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ???
?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ???
X---X---X
???? ?????? ???????
???? ????? ?? ?? FIR ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?????????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ????? ???
?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?????????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ????? ???
?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????
?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????
?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? :-
???? ?????? ????????
????? ?? 164 Cr.P.C. ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? 27.11.2019 ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ???"
It is also stated that before the trial court, the statement of doctor concerned, who examined the victim, has also been recorded, which is on record as Annexure No. 12 to the instant application, and a perusal thereof would indicate that the same is favourable to the applicant.
It is also stated that as regards the age of victim on which prosecution is placing reliance so as to attract offence under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, there is no material/evidence available with the prosecution to establish that the same is correct and in this view of the matter and also taking note of the facts of the case including the statement of informant and victim made before the trial court, 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.2/victim both.
It is also stated that taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter else matrimonial life of applicant and victim as well as future life of their minors would be ruined and shattered.
Averments made in short counter affidavit filed on behalf of victim/opposite party No. 2 also supports the aforesaid.
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, 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 arising out of Case Crime No. 0156/2018, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.
Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 6.3.2025
Arun/-
