Allowed

Rinku v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2019A482/15590/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court considered a settlement agreement and a medico-legal report suggesting the victim was approximately 18 years old rather than a minor. Relying on Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the bench held the victim was not a child, allowing the criminal proceedings to be quashed despite the private party's contestation.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal proceedings initiated in Case No. 15 P of 2018 arising out of Crime No. 426 of 2017.

Rinku Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15590 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghuraj Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of private opposite party today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, private opposite party, AGA and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present petition, the applicant has prayed for setting aside cognizance order dated 05.03.2018 as well for quashing charge sheet dated 11.02.2018 filed in Case No. 15 P of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 426 of 2017, under sections 376 IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Ayana, District Auraiya.

¶8

Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 09.05.2018, coordinate Bench of this Court referred the instant case to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Mediation and Conciliation Centre report dated 30.08.2018 reveals that mediation between the contesting parties have completed and interim settlement agreement between them has been enclosed as Annexure E of the aforesaid report, which forms part of the finalised settlement on 30.08.2018, the same is also signed Jyoti and Rinku.

¶9

Perusal of the statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the alleged victim girl categorically reveals that the girl admitted her age to be 20 years, she went with the applicant to Delhi on her own volition and accord, got married with the applicant -Rinku and is living with him as wife and husband. She further expressed her willingness to live with Rinku. She also stated in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., categorically that her mother has falsely initiated the instant criminal proceedings and she does not want to go with her mother. In the statement given before the doctor she reiterated her aforesaid statement of marriage with Rinku and affirming that the applicant is her husband and refuted the allegation of rape upon her by the applicant. The opinion of medico-legal report of Jyoti reveals to be about 18 years and it was not a case sexual assault.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant affirming all the aforesaid facts in the matter further submitted that now the couple is blessed with a son of eight months. He relied upon the principles of law laid down in the cases of enunciated in the judgements of Dileep Singh v. State of Bihar [2005 (1) SCC 88], Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [2013 (7) SCC 675] and Suhani and another v. State of U.P. and others in Civil Appeal No. 4532 of 2018 decided on 26.04.2018 arising out of SLP (C) 8001 of 2018 to buttress his contention.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the private opposite party again raised up and submitted her client i.e., Smt. Ashok Devi has challenged the aforesaid settlement between the applicant and Ms. Jyoti and is keen to contest the case. He submitted that the FIR lodged by opposite party no. 2 reveals the real factum of the case and age of the victim girl is 17 years, thus minor. To buttress his submission he demonstrated copy of mark sheet of class VIII of the girl and the testimonials of the same class.

¶12

In the considered opinion of this Court Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is not in consonance of the

¶13

submission made by the private opposite party. For ready reference relevant portion of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is extracted herein under:

¶14

"94. Presumption and determination of age.

¶15

1. Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.2. In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining —

¶16

i. the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;

¶17

ii. the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

¶18

iii. and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:

¶19

Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.

¶20

3. The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person."

¶21

This Court, relying upon the provisions envisaged in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 , the settlement deed dated 16.08.2018, report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court dated 30.08.2018 and considering the age of about 18 years, as opined in the medico-legal report, is of the considered view that the proceedings of the instant criminal case is liable to be quashed.

¶22

Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated in Case No. 15 P of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 426 of 2017, under sections 376 IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Ayana, District Auraiya pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya is quashed.

¶23

The application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 6.2.2019 shailesh

Rinku v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Pramod Kumar Nayak Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Braj Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gaurav Tiwari Vs State of Up and Another

Yaseen Vs State of U.P.

Akram Hussain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another