Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 115 (ALL)

Ghanshyam Jha v. State of U. P.

2025-01-24

RAJEEV MISRA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rajeev Misra, J. 1. Heard Mr. Navnath Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Varunesh Shukla, the learned counsel representing prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Ghanshyam Jha, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice this Hon'ble Court may be pleasedto quash the entire proceeding of Session Case No.762/2024 including the charge sheet dated 27.12.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 6.3.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr inCase No.4016/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 867/2023, u/S 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of A.D.J./F.T.C.-III, Bulandshahr. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the entire proceeding of Session Case No.762/2024 including the charge sheet dated 27.12.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 6.3.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr inCase No.4016/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 867/2023, u/S 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of A.D.J./F.T.C.-III, Bulandshahr, during the pendency of the present Criminal Misc. Application, and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury." 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused and also facing trial before court below, however, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as have emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained any further. As such, present application is liable to be allowed by this Court. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to the F.I.R. dated 17.12.2023 lodged by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and giving rise to present criminal proceedings, the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with applicant on 01.04.2024. As such, the prosecutrix is now the legally wedded wife of applicant. On account of above, the prosecutrix is now residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. As such, the prosecutrix is now the legally wedded wife of applicant. On account of above, the prosecutrix is now residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. Bonafide of the parties is also explicit from the fact that the marriage of the parties has been registered under the U.P. Registration of Marriage Rules 2017, photocopy of the marriage registration certificate has been brought on record and is at page 74 of the paper book. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that that since the marriage of the parties has been registered therefore there is statutory presumption regarding valid marriage of the parties. 5. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicant submits that though the applicant is named and charge sheeted accused but in view of the subsequent development that have taken place between the parties, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant now stands washed of. Since the prosecutrix and applicant are now residing together as husband and wife, therefore, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. Furthermore, in view of changed circumstances, the chances of conviction of accused/applicant are not only remote but also bleak. He therefore submits that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court. 6. Per Contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 does not oppose the present application. He submits that since the prosecutrix has herself entered into a compromise and thereafter solemnized marriage with applicant, therefore, he can not have any objection in case the present application is decided by this court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts. 7. Mr. Varunesh Shukla, the learned counsel representing prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. He further admits that subsequent to the F.I.R. dated 17.12.2023 lodged by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2, the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with applicant. The said marraige has been registered under the U.P. Registration of Marriage Rules 2017. On date, the prosecutrix is residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. He therefore, submits that he cannot have any objection in case the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. On date, the prosecutrix is residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. He therefore, submits that he cannot have any objection in case the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Varunesh Shukla, the learned counsel representing prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record this court finds that criminal prosecution of applicant commenced when the F.I.R. dated 17.12.2023 was lodged by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2. Subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R., the prosecutrix has herself solemnized marriage with applicant. As such, on date, the prosecutrix is the legally wedded wife of applicant. On account of above, the prosecutrix is residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. Bonafide of the parties is further explicit from the fact the marriage of the parties stands registered under the U.P. Registration of Marriage Rules, 2017. Consequently, there is a legal presumption regarding valid marriage of the parties. In view of above, the criminality, if any, committed by accused/applicant now stands washed of. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of accused/applicant. Chances of conviction of accused/applicant are now not only remote but also bleak in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. As such, in case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family comprising of accused/applicant and the prosecutrix shall stand broken. 9. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. The State By the Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 2022 decided on 09.05.2022 and reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056 10. Since the judgement is a short one therefore the same is reproduced in its entirety: "Leave granted. The appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix belongs to Valayar community, which is a most backward community in the State of Tamilnadu. He works as a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him for committing rape under Sections 5(j) (ii)read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He works as a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him for committing rape under Sections 5(j) (ii)read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was convicted after trial for committing the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous Reason: imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur on 31.10.2018. The High Court, by an order dated 13.02.2019, upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this appeal. Mr. M.P.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that allegation against him was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her. He stated that, in fact, he married the prosecutrix and they have two children. The appellant submitted that this Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ought to do complete justice and it could not be in the interest of justice to disturb the family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. After hearing the matter for some time on 08 th March, 2022, we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has categorically stated that she has two children and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle. For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. In case, the appellant does not take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can move this Court for modification of this Order." 11. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. 12. It is accordingly allowed. 13. The entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 762 of 2024 (State Vs. Pandit Ghanshyam Jha), arising out of Case Crime No. 867/2023, u/S 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, now pending in the court of A.D.J./F.T.C.-III, Bulandshahr, are hereby quashed. 14. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.