Allowed

Pramod v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023A482/1342/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving kidnapping and abduction charges against the father of a minor. The Court found the victim voluntarily left her home and married the applicant, rendering the offences under Section 363 and 366 IPC inapplicable based on Apex Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet, cognizance order, and entire criminal proceedings under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act were quashed.

Pramod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1342 of 2023 Applicant :- Pramod Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhakar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Joshi Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶2

Heard Sri Sudhakar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶3

By means of the instant application the applicant is pleased to quash the charge sheet dated 05.08.2018 and cognizance order dated 21.07.2022 passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Shahjahanpur as well as entire criminal proceeding of Sessions Case no. 1176 of 2022 arising out of case crime no. 126 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act P.s. Madnapur, District Shahjahanpur pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Shahjahanpur.

¶4

Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, a joint affidavit sworn by Pramod and Vandana is being filed during the course of the argument.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the FIR lodged by Sri Ratiram under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act against the applicant with the allegation that his daughter Ms. Vandana aged about 14 years was enticed away by the applicant, who resides in the neighborhood.The relationship between them have developed under the secrecy and lastly on 18.04.2018, the applicant has taken away his minor daughter. Since the age of the girl is 14 years and therefore, FIR was registered under Section 363, 366 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. During investigation, the couple approached this Court by filing a Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 12485 of 2018 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.05.2018 relying upon the judgement of Sachin Pawar Vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 decided on 02.08.2013 have protected the interest of the couple up to the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has mentioned that the couple were produced before the Division Bench and the Bench after inquiring from the victim have passed the order, which is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit accompanying the application.

¶7

The Court has an occasion to perused the 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim and rely upon the charge sheet was submitted by the I.O. on 05.04.2018 and learned CJM has taken the cognizance of the matter in July 2022.It is given to understand that both of them have got married in a temple but they have not got their marriage registered. It is further revealed that the couple were blessed with two daughters, namely, Annu (4 years) and Shanu (1-1/2 years) and they are happily residing as husband and wife.

¶8

On this learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of

¶9

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mafat Lal and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan in Crl. Appeal no. 592 of 2022 decided on 28.03.2022, the relevant extract of the judgement is quoted herein below:-

¶10

" 7. Before this Court, also the abductee has joined the accused as appellant No.2. Once again similar stand has been taken as was taken before the High Court. Both the appellants have filed separate affidavits. Appellant No.2 has specifically stated before the High Court as also before this Court that she had left her parental home on her own free volition. The appellants are married since December 2006 and have been living happily. They have also been blessed with a son in the year 2014 who would now be 8 years old. No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Section 363 IPC. In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will. Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the appellant no. 2 the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the appellant no.1 and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married appellant no.1 on her own free will without any influence being exercised by appellant no.1.

¶11

8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be best secured by quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings that arise therefrom. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 09.12.2020 of the High Court of Rajasthan is set aside and the entire proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 45 of 2005 dated 23.05.2005 registered with Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. "

¶12

Taking the help of these guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the charge sheet dated 05.08.2018 and cognizance order dated 21.07.2022 passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Shahjahanpur as well as entire criminal proceeding of Sessions Case no. 1176 of 2022 arising out of case crime no. 126 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act P.s. Madnapur, District Shahjahanpur pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Shahjahanpur be quashed.

¶13

The present 482 application stands allowed.

¶14

This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. This Court has not verified their credentials. If at all, opposite party no.2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application after explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

¶15

Let copy of this order may be transmitted to the concerned court within twenty days.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.2.2023/Abhishek Sri.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramod v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Shahbul Alias Pintoo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Rajeev Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Sachin Mathur Vs State of U.P. and Another