Allowed

Amit Kumar Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2019A482/19519/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for offences under IPC and POCSO, the single Judge allowed the prayer based on a filed compromise affidavit, citing Apex Court principles regarding settlement in matrimonial disputes involving sexual offences.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings under Special Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2015, along with the bail order dated 01.04.2017 and non-bailable order dated 03.05.2017, are set aside.

Amit Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19519 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Shankar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 95 of 2015, State Vs. Amit Kumar Kushwaha pending in the court of Additional Session Judge, Court No. 16, Allahabad (POCSO Act) and also may be pleased to quash the bail order dated 01.04.2017 and Non bailable order dated 03.05.2017 passed in the aforesaid SST No. 95 of 2015 in Case Crime No. 92 of 2015, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kaudhiyara,District Allahabad.

¶7

The attention of the Court has been drawn to the statement of the girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. contents of which is self explicit.

¶8

The Court has been informed that parties have entered into a compromise and compromise affidavit has been filed in the registry on 17.11.2018, however the same is not on record.

¶9

Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, counsel for opposite party no. 2 has produced a copy of compromise affidavit before this Court which is taken on record and the same has been perused by the Court.

¶10

I have perused the interim order dated 29.06.2017 which reads as under:-

¶11

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶12

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 92 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kaudhiyara, District Allahabad.

¶13

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the victim Suman @ Kiran Pandey in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution version. He further submits that

¶14

the alleged victim is a major and she had gone with the applicant on her own sweet will and has married him and at present they have also a son and therefore, the present criminal prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1.

¶16

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week.

¶17

Counter affidavit to be filed within four weeks by the learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party no. 2 and rejoinder affidavit to be filed within three weeks thereafter.

¶18

List thereafter before the appropriate Bench.

¶19

It is provided that till the next date of listing, further proceedings as against the applicant only, in Special Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 92 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kaudhiyara, District Allahabad shall remain stayed.

¶20

The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench."

¶21

The compromise affidavit is of Daya Shankar Pandey who happens to be the father of the girl and in the affidavit it is stated that dispute has been settled between the parties and the daughter of the complainant/deponent is living in the same house with the applicant as husband and wife. It is mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the compromise affidavit that deponent/complainant does not want to proceed the case any further and both are living happily and one son has been born on 21.06.2016 out of the said wedlock.

¶22

Thus, on the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties that the present application may be allowed in terms of the compromise and in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC, 303; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and 2014 AIR SCW 2065; Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶23

The present application is allowed as prayed.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.9.2019 Ujjawal

Amit Kumar Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Chandra Murat Chaube C.M. Chaube and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P.

Sultan Khan Vs State of U.P.

Amiruddin and Another Vs State of U.P.