Amit Kumar Nishad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10967 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Amit Kumar Nishad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 23 September, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:59755
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2923 of 2025   
 
   Amit Kumar Nishad    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Dheeraj Awasthi, Shailendra Kumar Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Piyush Singh, Shatakshi Shukla   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 14
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.     

On 23.04.2025, the following order was passed:-

"1. Short counter affidavit filed today on behalf of Respondent No.3 enclosing therein the marriage certificate, compromise deed and birth certificate of baby today is taken on record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the following prayer :

"I. To pass an order thereby quashing the impugned summoning order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure No. 1) passed by Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 759/2024 (State Versus Amit Kumar Nishad), and

II. To pass an order thereby quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure No. 2) as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 759/2024 (State Versus Amit Kumar Nishad), concerning Case Crime No. 68 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Section 17 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Rampur Mathura, District Sitapur."

3. The brief facts of the case are that that the F.I.R. dated 7.4.2023 has been lodged by Respondent No.2 under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. against the applicant alleging therein that he enticed her 15-16 years daughter to elope with him. The police after investigation has filed a chargesheet under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C., Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act and Section 17 of POCSO Act and in pursuance thereof the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and summon was issued against the applicant, feeling aggrieved the present application has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that at the time of alleged incident, the age of the victim was 17 years 10 months and 22 days as per educational certificate and in support his submission he relied upon the documents which has been enclosed as Annexure No.5 to the application and the ossification report wherein the age of the applicant has been shown as 20 years at the time of incident which has been enclosed as Annexure No.6 to the present applicant.

5. It is further submitted that the applicant and the Respondent No.3 have solemnized the marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir on 7.4.2023, the certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir, which has been filed by the Respondent No.3 alongwith the short counter affidavit as SCA-1 and from the said wedlock the applicant and Respondent No.3 have a daughter aged about 6 months old, the birth certificate has been enclosed as SCA-2 to the supplementary counter affidavit and now the applicant and Respondent No.3 are living a happy married life.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for Respondent No.3 have submitted that the compromise dated 17.02.2025 has been entered into between the parties, copy of which has been enclosed as SCA 3 to the supplementary counter affidavit, so the Respondent No.3 does not want to pursue any criminal case against the applicant. In support of her submission, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has relied upon the judgment dated 28.02.2025 of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 001005 of 2025), in which the criminal proceedings in the matter pertaining to Section 376 and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act have been quashed on the pretext that the appellant and the respondent are leading a happy married life and having children. The relevant paragraph nos. 7, 8 & 9 of the same are quoted hereinbelow:-

"7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and their children.

8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the marriage certificate was placed on record before the High Court. In fact, no objection by the first informant is also recorded in the impugned order. Surprisingly, the High Court instead of entertaining the petition for quashing on the ground of settlement, has observed that the application for dropping criminal proceedings on the basis compromise may be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement and in fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have been forced to come to this Court.

9. The impugned order is set aside. FIR No. 567 of 2016 registered with Cholapur Police Station, District Varanasi and proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 1332 of 2021 pending before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Varanasi are hereby quashed."

7. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and they have entered into a compromise by means of compromise deed dated 17.02.2025. Copy of which has been enclosed as SCA- 3 to the short counter affidavit.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that a liberty may be given to the applicant to file the original copy of the compromise along with the application before the trial court within a period of one week for the purpose of verification of said compromise entered into between the parties and the court below may be directed to verify the compromise.

9. As prayed, a week's time is granted to the applicant to file the original copy of the compromise before the Court below and the court below shall verify the same on 01.05.2025. On the said date all the signatories to the compromise shall appear before the court concerned.

10. List this case in the week commencing 12.05.2025.

11. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

12. The applicant shall file an affidavit bringing on record the certified copy of the order of verification passed by the concerned Court by the next date of listing.

13. Office is directed to return the original copy of the compromise, after retaining photostat copy of the same.

14. In the meantime, the parties may also get the marriage certificate verified from the Marriage Registration Officer, who has issued the certificate and file before this Court by the next date of listing."

The coordinate bench of this Court after considering the ratio of judgment in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 001005 of 2025) referred the matter to the trial court for verification of the compromised deed.

The fact remains that the applicant and the alleged prosecutrix are major and they have performed marriage and there is a child from their wedlock.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that he is innocent and falsely been implicated. He next added that due to misunderstanding the instant FIR has been lodged and thereafter the parties have settled their dispute and settlement deed has been executed, i.e., on 17.02.2025. He next added that the applicant and the prosecutrix have performed their marriage and they are living as husband and wife and there is a child from their wedlock.

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021 and has placed reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 and the same are extracted hereunder:-

"9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant."

He next added that this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Application under Section 482 No. 2923 of 2025, referred the matter to the trial court, wherein the compromise deed has been verified vide order dated 02.05.2025. He submits that further criminal proceedings against the present applicant, in such a situation, would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the applicant, as such, the same may be quashed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the version of learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have entered into compromise in the light of ratio of judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari (supra) and thus the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped.

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 17.02.2025 and said compromise has been verified on 02.05.2025 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal case relating to Case Crime No. 68 of 2023.

In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 17.02.2025 and no grievance remains to be agitated and as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgements of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

Accordingly, criminal proceedings with regard to Sessions Trial No. 759 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 68 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and Sections 17 of POCSO Act and section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act relating to Police Station Rampur Mathura District Sitapur are hereby quashed.

The compromise deed shall be part of this order.

The application is allowed accordingly.

Consigned to record.

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

September 23, 2025

Mayank