Allowed

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2022/2167/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 CrPC application, the High Court was urged to quash criminal proceedings involving allegations of rape and kidnapping against the applicant. The court quashed the charge-sheet and proceedings, citing the prosecutrix's statement in support of the applicant, a valid marriage, the birth of a child, and a subsequent compromise agreement entered between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned charge-sheet dated 03.12.2017 and case proceedings of Case No. 55 of 2018 are quashed.

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2167 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s), learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent no. 1-State, as well as Mr. Shiv Kumar Gupta, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2, and gone through the record.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Gupta is taken on record.

¶7

By way of this application under Section 482 CrPC the applicant(s) has/have prayed for quashing of charge-sheet dated 03.12.2017 filed in FIR No.0489 of 2017, under Sections 507, 506, 366 and 376 IPC lodged at Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow, for quashing of the order dated 05.12.2017 by means of which the applicant has been summoned to face trial and for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.55 of 2018, pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

¶8

As it comes out, FIR No. 0489 of 2017 came to be registered under Sections 364, 328, 376D, 506 and 506 IPC, Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.

¶9

Allegations in the FIR are that prosecutrix, aged about 21 years, was student of BA 2nd year in Lalta Prasad College, Bhawaniganj and having mobile no.9198021111, she received a telephonic call on 02.09.2017 at 8.51 a.m. from mobile no.9919956846 and caller called the daughter of the complainant at Sesendi bypass, near Shivala temple; when the prosecutrix reached there, she was forcibly taken inside the car and raped one by one by the persons, who kidnapped her; on next day, at around 8.58 a.m. brother of the prosecutrix received a telephonic call that they had left his sister on the way and sent her back by bus; the brother of the prosecutrix was given threats that if he would tell anything regarding the incident, he would be ready to face consequences.

¶10

During the course of investigation the prosecutrix supported

¶11

the prosecution case in her statements under Section 161 and 164 CrPC, however, charge-sheet was filed only against the present applicant under Sections 366, 376, 506 and 507 IPC.

¶12

Habeas Corpus Petition No.24704 of 2017 was filed on behalf of the prosecutrix, respondent no. 2 before this Court and coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2017, considering stand of the prosecutrix that though she performed marriage with the applicant, but the family of the detenue, respondent no. 2 was not accepting the marriage as the applicant and the respondent no.2 belonged to different castes, she was being harassed in the hands of her family members, Court found that the prosecutrix as well as the applicant were major and held that detention of the prosecutrix against her will would violate her fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The prosecutrix was produced before this Court and on query put to her, she said that she would like to go with her parents. In view thereof, the prosecutrix was given liberty to go as per her own wishes. After the said order dated 20.11.2017 was passed the prosecutrix and the present applicant are living together as husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, daughter, Kavya was born on 04.07.2022.

¶13

Pursuant to order of this order dated 07.07.2022, applicant and respondent no. 2, who are husband and wife are present. They have been duly identified by their respective counsels.

¶14

Respondent no. 2 states that the statements given by her under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were under pressure of her father; she was in love with the applicant with whom she performed marriage; out of their wedlock, there is a daughter, who is more than two years old; she wants to live with the applicant as his wife and she does not support the prosecution case; proceedings against her husband may be quashed.

¶15

The parties have also entered into a compromise/agreement which has been placed on record as Annexure-3. The said agreement has been verified by the learned ACJM-III, Court No. 27, Lucknow vide order dated 20.04.2022 in compliance of the order dated 29.03.2022 passed in Application U/S 482 No.1354 of 2022 earlier filed by the applicant before this Court.

¶16

Considering stand of the parties before this Court and also taking into consideration that pursuant to the order dated 20.11.2017 passed in Habeas Corpus No.24704 of 2-17, the parties are living together, out of their wedlock there is a two years old daughter, the continuation of the impugned proceedings against the applicant would be wholly unjustified and unwarranted.

¶17

In view thereof, the application is allowed . Consequently, the impugned proceedings are hereby quashed .

¶18

Order Date :- 27.7.2022 MVS/-

¶19

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.07.28 11:05:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Vivek Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Sec Home Civil Secy and Another

Umesh Chandra @ Pullu Tiwari and Anr. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Ram Shakal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. and Another

Rakesh Chandra Vs State of U.P and 4 Ors.

Vahida and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Taukeer Husain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Secrt. Lko and Another