Allahabad High Court
Lalit Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home … on 16 January, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2785 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10363 of 2024 Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Archana Rawat,Rahul Kumar Kaushal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2/victim is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Dilip Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.GA. for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. The present application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”) has been filed for the following main relief:-
“Wherefore, It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly by pleased to set aside the charge sheet no. 675/2023 dated 04.10.2023 U/S 323, 504, 506, 376, 452 I.P.C and 3/4 POCSO Act as well as the Charge order dated 452 31.10.2023 against petitioner – U/S 323, 504, 506, 376, 452 I.P.C. and 4 Pocso act passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/Spl. Judge Pocso Act Court no. 44 District Barabanki, contained annexure no. 1 & 2. to this petition. So far as it relates to the petitioner/applicant.
It is further prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the entire proceeding of Sessions case no. 2006/2023 (State of U.P. Versus Lalit Kumar) U/S 323, 504, 506, 376, 452 I.P.C and 3/4 POCSO pending before Addl. Sessions Judge/Spl. Judge Pocso Act Court no. 44 District Barabanki.”
4. It is stated that the informant/opposite party no.2 made a written compliant alleging therein, in brief, that applicant on the pretext of false promise of marriage, established physical relations with her daughter (victim/wife of applicant) and on 06.09.2023 at 11:30 hours the applicant abducted the victim and on being opposed the applicant and other family members of the applicant hurled abuses and also assaulted the informant/opposite party no.2 and victim both and taking note of the allegations levelled in the complaint the FIR No.0822 was lodged on 19.09.2023, under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 of POCSO Act.
5. It is stated that the FIR was lodged only for the reason that informant/opposite party no.2 was opposing the relationship of applicant and victim and this FIR contains false allegation and this can be deduced from the fact that charge sheet was filed by the I.O. only against the applicant.
6. It is further stated that the statement(s) of the victim were recorded in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and a perusal thereof would indicate that applicant and victim were in relationship and the physical relations were established on the pretext of false promise of marriage.
7. It is further stated that after lodging of the FIR the victim was medically examined and upon due examination by the Medical Board her age was found about 20 years. This fact is evident from the certificate issued from the office of Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki, annexed at Page 54 of the paper book.
8. It is also stated that a certified copy of the statement(s) of victim-wife of applicant recorded as P.W.1 is on record as Annexure No.5 at Page 60 to 62 and a perusal of the same would indicate that the victim-wife of applicant has not supported the story of prosecution and therefore she was declared hostile and despite cross-examination by State counsel nothing could be elicited against the applicant.
9. It is further stated that informant/opposite party no.2 has also been examined before the trial court as P.W.2 and has not supported the story of the prosecution which is evident from the certified copy of statement annexed as Annexure no.5 at page 60 to 62. This statement also indicates that the informant/opposite party no.2 was declared hostile by the trial court for the reason that during cross-examination informant stated that ” ?????????-???? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??, ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ??? ???? ???” and also that before the trial court the informant/opposite party no.2 stated that the altercation took place between her and the mother of the applicant and not with the applicant.
10. It is further stated that the age of the victim on the basis of which the prosecution under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act is doubtful as there is no sufficient evidence to establish that the date of birth indicated in the School records was correctly mentioned.
11. It is further stated that the applicant was having affair with the victim/opposite party no.2 and due to same she has married to applicant on her own volition and accordingly the present case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment(s) of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181; Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032 and being so the proceedings in issue are liable to be interfered by this Court.
12. It is further stated that since the victim has married to applicant and both are enjoying in their matrimonial life and, therefore, the indulgence of this Court is required else the matrimonial life of victim and applicant would be ruined.
13. Learned counsel for the side opposite based upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and the statement(s) of informant/opposite party no.2 and the victim/wife of applicant stated that the proceedings in issue may be quashed.
14. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations on the issue related to establishing physical relationship on assurance of marriage made in the judgment(s) of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar (supra); Deepak Gulati (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar (supra) and age of the victim i.e. 20 years as per medical opinion, at the time of lodging of FIR in light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 as also the fact that the applicant and victim have now married each other, as also the statement of victim and informant/opposite party no.2 before the trial court this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court in view of the aforesaid including the nature of relationship between the applicant and the opposite party no.2/victim as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the matrimonial life of the applicant and opposite party no.2/victim would be affected/ruined and 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, 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 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.0822 of 2023, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.
15. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
16. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 16.1.2025
Anand/-