Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32187 of 2017

Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra,Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mr Ajay Pratap Singh,Mr Lal Mani Singh,Ram Ashish Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S. B. Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant Arvind Kumar against State of U.P. and Vijai Narain, with prayer to quash charge sheet submitted in Case Crime No. 532 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 342, 506, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Friends Colony, district Etawah.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that prosecutrix was a major and she under her own volition went with applicant and got marriage, which was registered at Marriage Registration Office. Thereafter they live like spouse with all freedom, whereupon progeny is there. But her parent got this false case registered wherein arrest of the applicant till filing of charge sheet was stayed by this court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1034 of 2017 vide order dated 20.1.2017, wherein above facts were considered and it was argued before the court that victim is a major girl aged about 20 years, as per report of C.M.O.. From the perusal of her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that she voluntarily eloped with the applicant, but her custody was given to her mother, which was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 232 of 2017. This fact could not be opposed by learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and on this basis arrest of the applicant till submission of charge sheet was stayed. Subsequently, the police without making investigation submitted charge sheet, whereupon cognizance has been taken by the concerned Magistrate inspite of the fact that no offence was committed by the applicant. It was mere misuse of process of law. The victim is residing with applicant as his wife. Hence this application with above prayer.

¶8

Learned counsel for informant vehemently opposed the above application with this contention that on the date of occurrence prosecutrix was minor. She was enticed by applicant and was subjected to rape. Subsequent aspect of marriage and fabricating document regarding marriage was ensured by the

¶9

applicant. Hence this court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not to quash the charge sheet.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the arguments made by learned counsel for applicant.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record, it is apparent that the prosecutrix in her statements recorded u/s 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that no offence by accused has been committed. Rather she got herself married with accusedapplicant and this marriage was got registered. Thereafter they are living as spouse. This case was got registered upon report of her father with contention of the perception by mother of victim. Father was neither eyewitness account nor direct perception. Rather he informed whatever was told by his wife. The victim was held to be of 19 years of age by the Medical Board. This was of date 4.1.2017 and the occurrence was of June, 2016 i.e. the prosecutrix was a major on the above date of occurrence. Moreso, repeated citations are there that medical age determination may be two years either way. The victim was said to be a major girl, who gave statement that she voluntarily went with the applicant, got marriage with him, which was got registered. Presently they are residing as spouse and they are having their progeny. Hence, under above facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that this proceeding of the case will be proved to be a futile exercise and abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this application merits its allowance.

¶12

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the impugned charge sheet and the proceedings consequent thereon are hereby quashing.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.1.2020

¶14

Pcl

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akil Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Ragini and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Bachan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Lilawati Vs State of U.P. and. 6 Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another