Allahabad High Court
Patiraj Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 7 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14206
Court No. - 30
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2047 of 2025
Applicant :- Patiraj Verma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Kumar Panday
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Power alongwith joint affidavit of the applicant and opposite party No.3 filed today by Shri Saurabh Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party No.3 is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Ankur Kumar Panday, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of B.N.S.S, 2023) has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of SST POCSO Case No.56 of 2017; State vs. Patiraj Verma pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.1/Special Judge, POCSO Act;, Ambedkar Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No.69 of 2017 under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station-Kotwali Tanda, District-Ambedkar Nagar alongwith summoning order dated 10.08.2017 and charge sheet dated 14.06.2017 so far it relates to the applicant.
4. It is stated that opposite party no.3/victim aged about 24 years and applicant were having affair since 2017 and on account of some petty dispute, the marriage of applicant and opposite party no.3/victim could not be solemnized and the applicant and the opposite party No.3 have married each other and therefore, being annoyed the opposite party no.2/informant on 02.05.2017 at Police Station Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, registered a case asCase Crime No.69 of 2017 under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station-Kotwali Tanda, District-Ambedkar Nagar but the opposite party No.3 has not supported the prosecution story in her statement and has categorically stated that she has married the applicant and now she is living with him with their children.
5. It is further stated that applicant and opposite party no.3/victim have solemnized marriage and three children are born from their wedlock and they have jointly filed an affidavit asserting the aforesaid facts and denying the allegations of the prosecution case. It is further stated that opposite party No.3 is major and have solemnized marriage with the applicant with her own sweet will and if the aforesaid proceedings are allowed to continue, it may ruin their happy married life.
6. It is further stated that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another (2021) 7 SCC; and Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110.
7. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Deepak Gulati (Supra), Sonu @ Subhash Kumar (Supra) as also 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 based upon the compromise/agreement the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also taking note of the nature of dispute/crime and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of opposite party no. 3/victim and the applicant would be ruined, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.69/2017 (Supra), quoted above, are hereby quashed.
8. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
(Om Prakash Shukla, J.)
Order Date :- 7.3.2025
-Piyush-
