Allowed

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

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2022A482/8173/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet and entire criminal proceedings. Finding the case arose from a private dispute where the prosecutrix and applicant were married with a child, the held no crime against society was involved and quashed the pending proceedings to prevent disturbance of marital life.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Case No. 255/9 of 2021 under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act quashed.

Sachin Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8173 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sachin Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rammani Giri,Dr. Arun Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Dr. Arun Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Vinay Sharma, the learned counsel representing opposite party 2.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

Challenge in this application is to the charge sheet dated 22.12.2021 submitted in Case Crime No. 46 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Sachin and others), under Sections 363 and 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 P.S. Sikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar, the Cognizance Taking Order/summoning order dated 23.2.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Muzaffar Nagar in consequential Case No. 255/9 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Sachin and others), under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Sikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case, now pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffar Nagar.

¶8

Record shows that in respect of certain incidents which are alleged to have occurred from 14.4.2021 to 15.4.2021, a delayed F.I.R. was lodged by first informant/opposite party 2 Virendra and was registered as Case Crime No. 46 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Sachin and others), under Sections 363 and 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 P.S. Sikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely Anil, Sachin and Toni have been nominated as named accused.

¶9

According to the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R., the prosecutrix Boni daughter of brother-in-law of first informant went out of home at 2.00 a.m. The F.I.R. further records that the prosecutrix carried away a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and gold and silver jewellery in the company of Anil. Allegations with regard to the complicity of Sachin and Toni have also been made in the F.I.R.

¶10

After registration of aforementioned F.I.R. Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. The statement of first informant followed by the statement of the prosecutrix and others was recorded. Thereafter, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. Prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. To the contrary, the prosecutrix has stated that she is already married to Sachin. No role has been played by the brother and brother-in-law of Sachin in the crime in question.

¶11

However, the Investigating Officer upon completion of investigation of aforementioned case crime number has ultimately submitted the charge sheet dated 22.11.202, whereby accused Sachin has been charge sheeted under Sections 363/376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, whereas accused Toni has been charge sheeted under Section 363 IPC. Upon submission of charge sheet, Court concerned took cognizance and simultaneously summoned the accused/applicants, vide summoning order dated 23.2.2022.

¶12

Thus feeling aggrieved by above, applicants, who are charge sheeted accused, have now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

¶13

Dr. Arun Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants contends that it is an undisputed fact that on the date of incident, prosecutrix was a minor. However, subsequently, prosecutrix gained majority. The prosecutrix and applicant 1 have solemnized marriage on 18.9.2020. From the aforesaid wedlock, a female child was born on 23.02.2022. The marriage of parties has also been registered under the provisions of U.P. Registration of Marriage Rules 2017. Parties are living together. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicants contends that no useful purpose shall be served by continuing criminal proceedings of aforementioned criminal case. Married life of couple, who are living together happily, may get disturbed, in case the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. On the aforesaid premise, he, therefore, submits that entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case giving rise to present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. are liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶14

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel representing opposite party 2 have opposed present application. They contend that at the time of occurrence, prosecutrix was minor and her gaining majority subsequently will not wipe out the criminality committed by charge sheeted

¶15

accused. They, therefore, submit that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicants.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel representing opposite party 2 and upon perusal of material brought on record, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute. No crime has been committed by applicants against society. Moreover, the prosecutrix and applicant 1 have solemnized marriage, which was registered as required under the provisions of U.P. Registration of Marriage Rules 2017. From the aforesaid wedlock, a female child has also born. As such, prosecutrix and applicant 1 are living together as husband and wife. The continuation of criminal proceedings will only dislodge the applicants and prosecutrix who are living together.

¶17

For the facts and reasons noted above, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served by allowing continuation of proceedings of aforementioned criminal case.

¶18

In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

¶19

Entire proceedings of Case No. 255/9 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Sachin and others), under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Sikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar, now pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffar Nagar, are, hereby quashed.

¶20

Present application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶21

Cost made easy.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.7.2022 HSM

¶23

Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.07.11 16:37:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Kumar and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep @ Sandeep Singh Kushwaha Vs State of Up through Principal Seceratary Home Lucknow and Another

Bitu @ Praval Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munendra @ Munendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suleman @ Pirji Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Suresh Vs State of U.P. and Another