Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2767 (ALL)

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U. P.

2019-12-12

RAJEEV SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of S.T. No. 96 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No.103 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. & Section 16/17 POCSO Act, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, District Sitapur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the prosecutrix went with the applicant on her own will without informing her parents and due to annoyance, the F.I.R. as Case Crime No.103 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur was lodged by the brother of the prosecutrix on 08.05.2018 with the allegation that prosecutrix was enticed away by the applicant. He further submitted that the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement was recorded on 14.05.2015, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, in which she stated that her date of birth was 01.07.1997 and she passed Intermediate examination and she went with the applicant (her relative) and the applicant has not committed any wrong with her and she left her home without informing her parents, as a result, the F.I.R. was lodged, as they were roaming around Railway Station Mahmoodabad, then they were caught and brought to the police station. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded before the Magistrate, in which she categorically stated that she went on her own will with the applicant and she was not enticed away. He further submitted that the radiological age of the prosecutrix was found about 18 years (appended as annexure No.4), but without considering all the facts and circumstances under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., the charge sheet was filed under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 16/17 POCSO Act and the court below had taken cognizance. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the prosecutrix and applicant entered into the marriage and thereafter during their wedlock, a child was born on 26.03.2017 and her name is Mehak and the applicant and prosecutrix are enjoying their matrimonial life. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the prosecutrix and applicant entered into the marriage and thereafter during their wedlock, a child was born on 26.03.2017 and her name is Mehak and the applicant and prosecutrix are enjoying their matrimonial life. He further submitted that the trial is a sheer abuse of process of court and process of law and he further submitted that at this stage, the opposite party No.2 entered into compromise with the applicant Nos.1 & 2 and the applicant No.2 (prosecutrix) is residing at her matrimonial house, therefore, the opposite party No.2 does not want to prosecute the applicant No.1. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2014 (6) SCC 466 and submitted that in the present case, the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution version but the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer merely on the statement of the informant, as the prosecutrix has categorically stated that she was never abducted and she went on her own will with the applicant No.1, therefore, no case is made out and this Court has ample reasons to quash the proceedings while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of any court. He further submitted that in pursuance of the earlier order, the applicant No.1, applicant No.2 (prosecturix) and opposite party No.2 (informant) were appeared before the Senior Registrar and the contents of the compromise were duly verified on 06.12.2019. 7. He further submitted that in pursuance of the earlier order, the applicant No.1, applicant No.2 (prosecturix) and opposite party No.2 (informant) were appeared before the Senior Registrar and the contents of the compromise were duly verified on 06.12.2019. 7. Learned A.G.A. raises preliminary objection that the charge sheet was filed under the provisions of POCSO Act but he conceded the fact that during the course of investigation, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded and she had not supported the prosecution story and she categorically stated that she was not abducted and she went on her own will with the applicant No.1 as the applicant is her relative and she also deposed before the Magistrate at the time of recording her statement under Sections 164 Cr.P.C. that she went on her own will and the applicant No.1 did not do any wrong with her and thereafter they entered into marriage and during their wedlock a child was born on 26.03.2017 and they are enjoying their matrimonial life and he also conceded that the contents of the compromise were duly verified by the Senior Registrar on 06.12.2019. 8. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 & learned A.G.A. and going through the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the radiological certificate issued by the District Hospital, Sitapur, in which she was found aged about 16 years and the contents of the compromise dated 25.11.2019, it is found that the prosecutrix (Applicant No.2) was never abducted and she went on her own will with the applicant No.1 and she entered into the marriage with him and during their wedlock a child was born on 26.03.2017 and both of them are enjoying their matrimonial life and the informant being a brother of the prosecutrix is having no objection and also considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (supra), the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 96 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No.103 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. & Section 16/17 POCSO Act, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, District Sitapur is hereby quashed alongwith all consequential proceedings.