Allahabad High Court
Satish Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 March, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33000
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40822 of 2024
Applicant :- Satish Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Akshat Sinha,Himanshu Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today is taken on record.
2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that due to inadvertence, an inadvertent error has crept in the description of the first informant/opposite party no.2 in the cause title/array of parties of this application. He, therefore, seeks permission of the Court to correct the same.
3. Prayer so made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona fide. The same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A. for State/Opposite party no.. Accordingly, it is allowed.
4. Let necessary correction in the description of opposite party no.2 as occurring in the cause title/array of parties be carried out by the learned counsel for applicant during course of the day.
5. Heard Mr. Himanshu Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1.
6. Perused the record.
7. Applicant Satish Kumar, 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 be pleased to allow the present application and quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2448 of 2004 (State Vs Satish Kumar) pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi under section 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code including the Cognizance order dated 14.02.2001, Summoning order dated 14.02.2001 and Chargesheet arising out of Case Crime no. 101 of 2000 under section 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Saini District- Kaushambi."
8. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused and is also facing trial in aforementioned trial but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that have emerged during the pendency of aforementioned trial, the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained now and is, therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.
9. In furtherance of above submission, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that the criminal prosecution of applicant commenced when a first information report dated 2nd April, 2000 was lodged by the first informant/opposite party no.2 Santosh Kumar (father of the prosecutrix) and the same was registered as Case Crime No. 101 of 2000 under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Saini, District-Kaushambi. However, subsequent to the registration of the first information report dated 2nd April, 2000, the applicant solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix in the year 2001. Consequently, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of the applicant. By reason of above, the prosecutrix started residing with the applicant as his legally wedded wife. From the aforesaid wedlock/cohabitation of the applicant and prosecutrix as husband and wife, two daughters, namely, Kashish Dubey and Kanishka Raj Dubey were borne respectively. Their birth certificates have been brought on record as Annexure No. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today. As per the aforesaid certificates, the applicant is shown as father, whereas prosecutrix is shown as mother. On the above premise, it is thus submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that in view of subsequent developments, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant now stands washed off. As such, he submits that no useful purpose shall now be served in prolonging/continuing the criminal prosecution of applicant. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. The learned counsel for applicant then refers to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani Vs. The State By the Inspector of Police reported in 2022 SCC OnLIne SC and in the case of Mafat Lal & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2022) 6 SCC 589, wherein the Apex Court also quashed the proceedings against the accused therein on the ground that the accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, the present application is liable to be allowed.
10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party no.1 has vehementally opposed the present application. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.
12. Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.
13. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 on before the date fixed in the notice.
14. All the opposite parties may file their respective counter affidavits.
15. List for admission on 7th April, 2025.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submission urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this application as noted herein above as well as the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, as an interim measure, it is hereby provided that until furthers of this Court, further proceedings in Case No. 2448 of 2004 (State Vs Satish Kumar) arising out of Case Crime no. 101 of 2000 under section 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Saini District- Kaushambi, now pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi shall remain stayed.
(Rajeev Misra, J.)
Order Date :- 6.3.2025
Sushil/-
