Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 117 (ALL)

Inderjeet v. State of U. P.

2025-01-24

RAJEEV MISRA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rajeev Misra, J. 1. Heard Mr. Chandra Jeet Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. State opposite party 1 and Mr. Shashi Dhar Shukla, the learned counsel represented first informant opposite party 2. 2. Perused the record. 3. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for appellants in court today is taken on record. 4. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant, Indra Jeet (Chargesheeted accused) and Sanju (the prosecutrix) with the prayer to quash the proceeding of Sessions Case No. 547 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 78 of 2020, State Vs. Indrajeet, Police Station-Mahuli, District-Sant Kabir Nagar, under Sections 363 , 366, 376, 504 , 506 IPC , read with Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , Police Station-Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending before Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though applicant 1, Indra Jeet is a named and charge-sheeted accused and is also facing trial before court below by means of aforementioned Sessions Trial, however, in view of the subsequent developments that have emerged on record, the impugned criminal proceedings cannot be sustained. In furtherance of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to the F.I.R. dated 23.3.2020 lodged by first informant, opposite party no.2, Smt. Gyanmati Devi (mother of the prosecutrix) the prosecutrix i.e. Sarju solemnized marriage with applicant-1. Consequently, the prosecutrix is now the legally weeded wife of applicant. By reason of above, prosecutrix is residing with the applicant as his legally weeded wife. From the cohabitation of applicant and the prosecutrix two male children were born. The bona fidie of the prosecutrix is explict from the fact that the prosecutrix has joined the present application inasmuch as she is a party to the application and furthermore a joint affidavit has also been filed by both the applicants in support of this application. 6. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the parties have also applied for registration of their marriage in terms of the U.P. Registration of Marriage Rule, 2017. Copy of the application form for registration is on record at page 6 of the supplementary affidavit. 7. 6. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the parties have also applied for registration of their marriage in terms of the U.P. Registration of Marriage Rule, 2017. Copy of the application form for registration is on record at page 6 of the supplementary affidavit. 7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of subsequent development that have taken place, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant 1 shall stand washed off. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant 1. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant 1 is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. He, therefore, submits that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as noticed above the present application is liable to be allowed. 8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant, opposite party 2 have vehemently opposed the present application. They submits that since the prosecutrix was a child within the meaning of the term 'child' as defined in POCSO Act on the date of occurrence, therefore, the subsequent development, if any, will not wipe out the criminality committed by applicants. To substantiate his submission, he referred to the decision given by the Supreme Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 in which it has been held that no compromise can be entertained in matters relating to rape and sexual assault. 9. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021 wherein the Apex Court has held that there can be no compromise in matter arising out of the POCSO Act. 10. On the above edfic it is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party 2 that no interference is warranted by this Court in this application. However, they could not dislodge the the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. 11. 10. On the above edfic it is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party 2 that no interference is warranted by this Court in this application. However, they could not dislodge the the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. 11. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant and upon perusal of record, this court finds that subsequent to the F.I.R. dated 23.3.2020 lodged by first informant opposite party 2, namely, Gyanmati, mother of prosecutrix, the prosecutrix solemnized marriage with applicant on 23.6.2020. As such, the prosecutrix is now the legally weeded wife of applicant. By reason of above, the prosecutrix started residing with the applicant 1 as his legally weeded wife. From the aforesaid cohabitation of the parties two children were born. The bonafide of the parties is further explicit from the fact that the parties have duly applied for registration of their marriage under the U.P. Registration of Marriage Rules, 2017. Photocopy of the application for registration of marriage has been brought on record and is at page 6 of the supplementary affidavit. Further more the prosecutrix has joined the applicant inasmuch as the applicant 2 in the array of parties have further filed a joint affidavit in support of this application. 12. In view of above, the criminality, if any, committed by the applicant shall stand washed off. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant 1. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant 1 is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. 13. Reference at this stage be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Dandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC Online SC 1056 . The judgment is a short one, therefore, the same is reproduced in its entirety: "1. Leave granted. 2. 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 worksas a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him forcommitting 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 worksas a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him forcommitting 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 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. After hearing the matter for some time on 08th 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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 maternal uncle. 8. 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. 9. 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." 14. In view of the discussions made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. 15. It is accordingly, allowed. 16. The entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 547 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 78 of 2020, State Vs. Indrajeet, Police Station-Mahuli, District-Sant Kabir Nagar, under Sections 363 , 366, 376, 504 , 506 IPC , read with Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , Police Station- Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending before learned Court Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar shall stands quashed. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost.