Allahabad High Court
Narendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ... on 17 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:65979
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9027 of 2025
Narendra Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 4 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rajat Pratap Singh, Munendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Short counter affidavit and Vakalatnama filed today on behalf of opposite party No.3 by Shri Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate, is taken on record.
Heard Shri Rajat Pratap Singh and Shri Munendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and Shri Rahul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief (s):-
"For the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned cognizance order dated-19.08.2025, passed in Session Trial No. 1330/2025, Case Crime No. 401/2017, Under Section -363/366/376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Unnao "State versus Narendrah Kumar" as well as charge sheet No.488/2019, dated 08.07.2019" along with entire proceeding in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."
Applicant/Narendra Kumar and opposite party No.3/victim along with the minors namely Kartik and Ritwik, born out of wedlock of applicant and victim, are present before this Court.
The applicant has been identified by Sri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and opposite party No.3/victim has been identified by Sri Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate.
It is stated that applicant who is presently aged about 28 years, which means that the applicant was aged about 20 years on 11.04.2017, i.e. the date of lodging of the F.I.R., and the applicant and victim/opposite party No.3, who was an adult from her physical appearance, were in affair and therefore the victim on her own volition left the house of her parents and accompanied the applicant and solemnized the marriage and out of this wedlock the mail child, namely Kartik was born on 23.10.2018 and second male child namely Ritwik was born on 10.10.2022.
It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No.2/complainant being annoyed with the relationship of the applicant and the victim on 11.04.2017 registered as F.I.R./Case Crime No.0401/2017 making allegations therein that the applicant enticed away the minor daughter of the informant/opposite party No.2 i.e. the victim and therefore the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. at Police Station - Kotwali, District-Unnao.
After the aforesaid, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and upon completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.
It is submitted that the age of the victim indicated in the F.I.R. i.e. 15 years is not correct for the reason that upon due medical examination the victim was found to be aged about 17 years and the prosecution would not be in a position to establish its case in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act to establish the age as indicted in the F.I.R.
It is also submitted that taking note of the entire facts, the complainant/opposite party No.2 has pardoned the applicant and opposite party No.3 and therefore signed the deed, which is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the application, according to which the applicant shall keep the victim and the children with full dignity and respect and that they do not want to pursue the criminal proceedings of the F.I.R. in issue.
It is also submitted that in view of the facts of the instant case, the benefit of the 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 and the opposite party no.3/victim both.
It is also stated that presently the applicant and victim/opposite party No. 3 are living as husband and wife alongwith their minors namely Kartik and Ritwik, which can be deduced from the facts pleaded in the present application.
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. 3 as also future of their minors would be ruined. The victim/opposite party No. 3 present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune.
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 Suhana (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, in the ends of substantial justice, the proceedings based upon the settlement between the parties 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 as also the future of their minors 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Consequently, the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.1330/2025, arising out of charge sheet No.488/2019, dated 08.07.2019 relating to Case Crime No.401/2017, Under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District-Unnao (State versus Narendrah Kumar) along with entire proceeding pending before the Additional Session Judge-II/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Unnao, as quoted above in the prayer clause, are hereby quashed.
Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
October 17, 2025
ML/-
