Pramod Kumar @ Pramod vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, … on 16 January, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Pramod Kumar @ Pramod 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:2872
 
Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9130 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Pramod Kumar @ Pramod
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sheikh Mohammad Ali
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar,Ms.Asha
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
 

1. Short counter affidavit(s) filed today on behalf of opposite party no.3/victim is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.3, learned AGA 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 be pleased to quash the entire proceedings Criminal case No.649/2012″ State Vs Pramod Kumar” arising out of Case Crime No.310/2012; under sections 363,366,376 I.P.C., relating to Police Station Motipur, District Bahraich, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich and also the operation and implementation of the impugned summoning order dated 04.08.12, so for as the same relate to the petitioners, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich as contained in Annexure nos.1 to the during the pendency of instant petition, in the interest of justice.”

4. It is stated that the opposite party no.2/informant being annoyed with the relationship of the applicant and victim as also the fact that victim on her own volition left her parental house and accompanied the applicant, the FIR bearing Case Crime No.310 of 2012 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. was lodged at P.S. Motipur, District Bahraich. According to FIR the victim, at the relevant point of time, was aged about 14 years.

5. It is further stated that in fact the prosecution is not having any evidence to support that the age mentioned in the FIR is correct and in fact the date of birth as indicated by the prosecution is not correct as according to pariwar register (Annexure SCA-1 to the short counter affidavit), which is a statutory document under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers Rules, 1970), the victim was born on 01.01.1993 and, therefore, at the time of lodging of the FIR the victim was about 19 years old.

6. It is further stated that the victim on her own voilition solmenized the marriage with the applicant and thereafter the vicim and applicant appeared before the Registrar of Hindu Marriage, District Bahraich and based upon the document produced before the concerned auhority the marriage certificate in terms of U.P. Hindu Marriage (Registration) Rules, 1973 was issued on 30.04.2012. The marriage certificate is annexed as Annexure No.S.A.2 to the short counter affidavit. According to the Marriage Certificate the victim on 30.04.2012 was 22 years old.

7. Thus, taking note of the discrepancy in the age of the victim as also various pronouncements on the issue related to determination of age, the victim/opposite party no.3 is liable to be considered as major at the time of incident.

8. It is also stated that in view of the facts of the instant case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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.

9. It is also stated that out of the wedlock of applicant and victim there are three children namely Nitesh Nishad, Pawan Nishad and Sandhya Kumari, aged about 11, 10 and 8 years, respectively, and presently the applicant and victim/opposite party no.3 are living as husband and wife alongwith their minor children under one roof happily.

10. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter else entire matrimonial life of applicant and victim/opposite party no.3 as also future of their minors would be ruined.

11. 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, as 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 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 is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in issue, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

12. 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/-