Allahabad High Court
Neeraj Pathak And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) ... on 10 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14593
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1951 of 2025
Applicant :- Neeraj Pathak And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today is taken on record.
Short counter affidavit filed by Shri Shivam Pandey, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in Court today is taken on record.
The applicant no.1 and the applicant no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'victim') are present before this Court, who have been identified by Shri Naveen Kumar Pandey, appearing for the parties.
Heard.
The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following main relief:-
"to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 895/2020 'State Vs Neeraj Pathak', pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda, as well as Chargesheet No. 01/2019, dated 03.01.2020, under section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., & Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Gonda, and Summoning order dated 05.11.2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 347/2019, under sections - 363, 366 I.P.C., relating to Police Station Nawabganj, District compromise dated 23.12.2024."
It is stated that applicant no.1 and victim were having affair and victim was inclined to marry him and both were known to each other.
It is further stated that the relationship of victim and applicant no.1 was not acknowledged/accepted by the opposite party no.2/mother of the victim/complainant and therefore an FIR No. 347 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 IPC was lodged against the applicant no.1. According to this FIR, the victim, a minor aged about sixteen years, was enticed away by the applicant.
It is further stated that in fact, the victim, on her own volition, left house of her parents and accompanied the applicant no.1 to Faizabad and thereafter, to Mumbai where the applicant no.1 and the victim solemnized marriage and started living as husband and wife.
It is further submitted that during investigation, the statement(s) of the victim were recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. (Annexure Nos. 4 and 5) and from a perusal of these statement(s) of the victim would show that she was in love with the applicant no.1 as also that she, on her own volition, left her parental house and a bare perusal of the same would also indicate that at that point of time she indicated that her age is nineteen years.
It is further submitted that the victim before the trial Court has not supported the story of prosecution. The statement of the victim is extracted herein-under :-
"PW2
4-3-2022
?????? ???? D/O ???? ????? ?????????? W/O ???? ???? ????-21 ???? ???????? - ????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ??- ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? 12 ??? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ??? 2-4-2003 ????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ???????? 2-4-2003 ????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? 16 ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? 4-5 ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? 161 CRPC ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? 164 CRPC ?? ??? ???? ? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?-2 ???? ???? 164 CRPC ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ???
xx by Defence - ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???, ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???
Declared Hostile xx by ????? ??? ???????
?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???
???? ????? ?????? ?????
??????? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ?????
?? ??????
4-3-22"
It is also stated that the informant/opposite party no. 2 has also not supported the story of the prosecution before the trial Court. The statement of the informant referred is extracted herein-under :-
"PW1
9-12-21
?????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????????? ???? 60 ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ???????, ????-?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??-
???? ?????? 14-02-2019 ?? ??? 5.30 ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? 16 ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?-01 ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???
???? ???? -----------------------x------------by Defenece
?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ????
????? ?????? ?????
????
01-09-21"
"PW1
9-12-21
??????-????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? xx by Defence ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? 4 ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ? ???? ???? ?????? ? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???
Decland Hostile Re Examination by ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? 17 ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ????
???? ????? ?????? ?????
??????? ???? ???? ???????? ???
?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???
????? ???? ????"
Further submission is that the age of the victim indicated by the prosecution is not correct and to establish that the age indicated in the documents available with the prosecution is correct there is no material/evidence with the prosecution. It is in view of the age indicated by the victim/opposite party no. 5 before the concerned Investigating Officer i.e. 19 years as also the date of birth mentioned in the document in the certificate issued by Balika Kanya Inter College, Nawabganj, Gonda, annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit, which indicates her date of birth as 02.04.2003 as also the medical opinion which indicates that at relevant point of time the victim was about 19 years old. In view of these facts as also that the applicant and the victim are living together as husband and wife alongwith two minors born out of wedlock of the applicant no. 1 and the victim which fact can be deduced from the birth certificate of minors annexed as Annexure No. 7, 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 no.1, the victim and their children.
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 no.1 and victim as also their children would be ruined.
The victim present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune. Short counter affidavit of informant/opposite party no.2 also supports the case of the applicants.
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. 347/2019, 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 :- 10.3.2025
Mohit Singh/-
