Allowed

Pradeep @ Prudumbh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2019A482/41203/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed criminal proceedings under sections 363, 366 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act. It held that a major victim who voluntarily married the accused and lives peacefully nullifies the prosecution purpose, allowing quashing under inherent powers.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet dated 8.2.2019, cognizance order dated 4.7.2019, and entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No. 124 of 2019.

Pradeep @ Prudumbh Kumar Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41203 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep @ Prudumbh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudhir Kumar Tripathi, counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 8.2.2019, cognizance order dated 4.7.2019 as sell as entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No. 124 of 2019 (State vs. Pradeep @ Prudumbh Kumar) arising out of Case Crime no. 555 of 2018, u/s 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Banda, District Shahjahanpur pending in the court of Addition District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 8, Shahjahanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the opposite party no. 2 lodged F.I.R. against the applicant with the allegation that he had enticed away her daughter aged about 17 years and there is sufficient evidence in its support. It is contended that during investigation, the victim was recovered and she was sent to Bal Kalyan Samiti considering her age to be 17 years according to prosecution.

¶9

Short counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 2 clearly stating in para-4 that after recovery of the victim the Bal Kalyan Samiti handed over the victim to the deponent being mother of the victim and thereafter she came to know that the victim fell in love with the applicant and she had gone with him of her own free will voluntarily and was pregnant, therefore, keeping her daughter happiness she has performed her marriage with the applicant and now the victim is residing with the applicant as his wife and from the wedlock a male child has also born.

¶10

Learned counsel has further pointed out that as per the medical report, age of the victim is about 18 years and there is no other school record or material that she was minor at the time of

¶11

incident. He further submitted that even at the stage of recording statement u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix had admitted having affair and marrying with the applicant, therefore, prayer for quashing the proceeding has been made.

¶12

The opposite party no. 2 has filed her own affidavit on which her thumb impression affixed that she has no objection if the proceeding of the aforesaid case against the applicant is quashed as her daughter is leading peaceful married life with the applicant and she does not want to proceed any further.

¶13

I may record that though in certain judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that proceeding cannot be quashed merely because the prosecutrix has compromised the matter with the accused, however, on the contrary there are several judgments where the girl is major and she solemnized marriage and established physical relation voluntarily prima facie offence u/s 363, 366 IPC is not made out. The Court in the exercing of its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of law has quashed the proceedings.

¶14

In view of the fact that it is not denied by opposite party no. 2 that she is happy that her daughter has performed marriage with the applicant and is living peaceful married life, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. Thus, 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 , the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶15

The present application is accordingly allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 21.11.2019 Dhirendra/

Pradeep @ Prudumbh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep @ Prudumbh Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Sarvesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Narain Pradhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Roop Kishor Seth Vs State of U.P. and Another

Golu Alias Ajay and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Kanha Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Montu Vs State of U.P. and Another