Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Anas Khan @ Anas Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 6 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13668
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2021 of 2025
Applicant :- Mohd. Anas Khan @ Anas Khan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh, Advocate alongwith Vakalatnama on behalf of victim 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:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned chargesheet dated 17/10/2023 and summoning order dated 16/07/2024 along with other consequential proceedings currently pending before Learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 12, Sultanpur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 793/2024, "State. Vs. Mohd. Anas.", arising out of FIR No. 189/2023, under sections 363 IPC, 16/17 POCSO Act, P.S. Dhammour, District Sultanpur, as contained in Annexure-1 and 2 to this Writ Petition."
It is stated that applicant and victim/opposite party No. 2 were having affair and victim/opposite party No. 2 was inclined to marry him and both were known to each other.
It is stated that being annoyed with the relationship of the applicant and victim, an FIR was lodged by the uncle of the victim on 29.08.2023 at Police Station- Dhammour, District- Sultanpur, which was registered as FIR/Case Crime No. 0189 of 2023, under Section 363 IPC. As per this FIR, in nutshell, the applicant enticed away the victim (niece of the informant), who was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged occurrence, though, the same was not correct, as the victim on her volition left her parental house and accompanied the applicant and also solemnized marriage with him on 29.05.2024.
It is further stated that the fact that the victim left her parental house on her own volition on account of ill-treatment by her step-mother and the informant, who intend to solemnize victim's marriage with a man who is 10 years older to victim, and the fact that the applicant has not committed any crime, are evident from the statements of victim recorded in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. on 06.10.2023 and 12.10.2023, respectively. Reference in this regard has been made to the Annexure No. 5 of the instant application, which is the typed copy of the statement of victim recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. The same is extracted hereunder:-
"??????-06/10/2023
?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ????-161 CRPC... ???? ?????? ???????? ????- 161 CRPC... ????????? ???????? 189/2023 ???? 363 IPC ???? ?????? ???? ????????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? D/O ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? 20 ???? ?? ??? ????? 10 ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? 2 ??? ?? ??? S/O ????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ???? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? 28/08/2023 ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ? ????, ???? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?????????? ???? ? ??? ?? ??? ? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???"
Further reference in this regard has been made to the Annexure No. 5 of the instant application, which is the typed copy of the statement of victim recorded in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. The same is extracted hereunder:-
"??????-12/10/2023
?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ????-164 CRPC... ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? (???? ?????? ?? ?????) ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????- ?????? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ????- 164 CRPC... ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? (????????? ????? ????) 28/08/2023 ?? ??? 01:00 ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???"
It is further stated that as per medical opinion, the victim on 03.04.2024 was found about 17 years old and this fact can be deduced from the certificate issue from the office of Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur annexed at page No. 49 of the instant application.
It is further stated that taking note of the facts of the case, this Court also protected the interest of the applicant and victim vide order dated 12.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7296 of 2023 (Mohd. Anns Khan and another vs. State of U.P. and others). The order dated 12.10.2023 on reproduction reads as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. This Court had earlier passed an order on 25.09.2023 which is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.
This petition has been filed praying the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned first information report lodged on 29.08.2023 at F.I.R./Case Crime No.-0189 of 2023, under Section 363 I.P.C., Police Station - Dhammaur, District - Sultanpur, contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No.-3 and 4, not to disturb in peaceful living the petitioner."
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 had merely given shelter to the petitioner no. 2, who is 17 years old and her step mother want to get her marry to an older person. Such doubt has been made without any ill intention.
Learned A.G.A. shall seek instruction with regard to the current status of the facts mentioned in paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9.
List this petition on 9th of October, 2023 as fresh.
Till the next date of listing or till filing of the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., petitioners shall not be arrested in pursuance to the impugned First Information Report subject to the co-operation of the petitioners in the ongoing investigation."
3. Thereafter when the matter was taken up on 09.10.2023, the petitioners had informed this Court that they had gone to the police station concerned and handed over the victim to the police on 06.10.2023.
4. This Court has perused the instructions sent by the Sub Inspector Police Station Dhammaur, Sultanpur wherein it has been stated that on the basis of educational certificates i.e. High School pass certificate, the date of birth of the victim was 18.05.2006 and she was 17 years 3 months old at the time of the incident therefore, Section 16/17 of the POCSO Act has been added. The victim had been produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Sultanpur and on the basis of the statement of the victim she has been sent to the Rajkiya Balgrah (Balika) Para Sindhi Kheda, Lucknow.
5. If the petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by the CWC, they will have to challenge such order before the appellate authority under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The petition insofar as the quashing of the F.I.R. is concerned, cannot be pursued further by the petitioners as it appears that the victim has not supported the petitioners and has chosen to go to Rajkiya Balgrah.
6. The petition stands disposed of."
It is further stated that presently the applicant and victim are living as husband and wife under one roof and enjoying their matrimonial life, which can be deduced from the copy of Nikahnama annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the instant application, hindi translation of which is annexed at page No. 51 of the instant application.
It is also stated that as regards the age of victim on which prosecution is placing reliance so as to attract offence under Section 16/17 of POCSO Act, there is no material/evidence available with the prosecution to establish that the said date of birth of victim is correct and in this view of the matter, 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 fact that the victim left her parental house on her own volition, which is apparent from the statements of victim herself recorded in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. quoted above, the case of applicant is liable to be considered in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofS. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras reported in (1965) 1 SCR 243.
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/opposite party No. 2 would be ruined.
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.189/2023, 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/-
