Allowed

Rajman v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2018A482/43196/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court set aside an order of the Additional Session Judge refusing to restore a major victim to her husband. The Court held that the prosecutrix, aged 20, should not remain confined in Nari Niketan and must be set at liberty.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.10.2017 refusing to restore the prosecutrix to the applicant is set aside; the prosecutrix is set at liberty forthwith.

Rajman Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43196 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Rajman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Sri Vir Pratap Singh, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 in the Court today, the same is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Vir Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to set aside the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Hamirpur, in Special Case No. 28 of 2017 (State v. Rajman) whereby the application of applicant to restore care and protection of his wife - prosecutrix, who is kept in Nari Niketan, Kanpur Nagar, in his favour, has been refused.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 25.08.2016 by opposite party no. 3 Hariram (father of prosecutrix) against the applicant Rajman at Case Crime No. 169 of 2016 under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Sisolar, District- Hamirpur with the allegation that his daughter prosecutrix was abducted by the applicant. Informant Hariram submitted school certificate of the prosecutrix, according to which, her date of birth is 15.09.2001.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant relying on the judgment of Hon'ble The Apex Court in Juhi Devi v. State of Bihar 2005 (13) SCC 376 and judgments of this Court in Raj Kumari v. Superintendent, Women Protection House 1997 LawSuit(All) 63 and Kalyani Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1977 LawSuit(All) 234 , contended that the prosecutrix is major. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has narrated her age to be about 20 years and admitted this fact that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 02.08.2016. She was pregnant from the applicant and she wanted to go with the applicant. Learned counsel further contended that as per medical report, the age of the prosecutrix is between 18-21 years and she has been wrongly

¶10

confined in Nari Niketan, Kanpur Nagar.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 have vehemently opposed the prayer to set aside the order passed by Additional Session Judge, Hamirpur and contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶12

Learned trial court held that the prosecutrix is minor and send her to Nari Niketan, Kanpur Nagar.

¶13

As per medical report, age of the prosecutrix is between 18 and 21 years. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated before the Magistrate that her age is about 20 years and that she has married with the applicant on her own sweet will. She also stated that her father has prepared forged marksheet and lodged a false F.I.R. against the applicant.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is not appropriate for the prosecutrix to remain confined in Nari Niketan, Kanpur Nagar. Also taking her age into consideration, it would be proper to set her at liberty forthwith.

¶15

Accordingly, the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Hamirpur, in Special Case No. 28 of 2017 (State v. Rajman) is hereby set aside. The prosecutrix shall be set at liberty forthwith, according to her wishes.

¶16

Let a certified copy of this order be send to the court concerned for its immediate compliance.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, the application is finally disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.1.2018 I. Batabyal

Rajman v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajman v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Chand @ Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another