Allowed

Rohit Vishwakarma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/11793/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 363, 366 IPC and POCSO. The court held that as the victim had grown beyond minority, the POCSO charges were not made out, and quashing prevents persecution of the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Sessions Trial No.484 of 2023, Case Crime No.0436 of 2021 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, 16/17 POCSO Act and Charge-sheet No.1 dated 15.03.2023.

Rohit Vishwakarma and Another Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:513

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11793 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit Vishwakarma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Pandey,Akhilesh Singh,Satyendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Singh Chauhan

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Sachin Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri Akhilesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

¶8

2. By means of the instant application, the applicant has sought quashing of the proceedings of Sessions Trial No.484 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.0436 of 2021 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur as well as Charge-sheet No.1 dated 15.03.2023 pending before A.D.J., Court No.12, District Sultanpur.

¶9

3. Aforesaid proceedings were initiated by means of an FIR lodged by opposite party No.2 on 01.10.2021 alleging that the applicant No.1 had enticed away informant's minor daughter on 29.09.2021.

¶10

4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC., she stated that she was aged about 18 years and she has studied up to High School. Her parents wanted to get her married to an old person against her wishes and for this reason, she had gone to Punjab, where the applicant used to reside and she got employed with the help of the applicant No.1. She categorically stated that applicant No.1 did not entice her away and while living in Punjab, she started liking the applicant No.1 and has married him about a month ago.

¶11

5. A copy of the High School Certificate of the victim has been annexed with the affidavit, which mentions her date of birth to be 09.01.2004. The victim was taken for medico legal examination but

¶12

she declined to undergo the same and as per her medical examination for ascertaining her age, she has been opined to be around 20 years old.

¶13

6. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also, she stated that she had gone away on her own and while living in Punjab, she started liking the applicant No.1 and has married him about a month ago and she wants to live with him only.

¶14

7. Subsequently, the victim gave an application dated 23.02.2023 to the Station House Officer stating that she has married the applicant No.1 on 25.08.2022 and she has a son, aged about one and a half months, out of the said wedlock and the FIR has been lodged on the basis of false allegation. The victim has given an affidavit also in support of this application and a copy of birth certificate of son of the applicant No.1 and the victim has also been annexed with the affidavit, which indicates that the victim has delivered a male child on 09.01.2023. Subsequently, on 17.11.2023, opposite party No.2 has entered into compromise with the applicant No.1 stating that he does not want to continue with the impugned proceedings against him.

¶15

8. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and has submitted that since the present case involves allegation of commission of offence under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, it cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶16

9. When I examine merits of the case, it appears that on the basis of material placed before the Court that the victim's father had alleged in the FIR that the applicant No.1 had enticed away his daughter but the victim's daughter categorically stated before the Investigating Officer as also before the Magistrate that she had gone away with her own and she did not level any allegation of any misdeed committed by the applicant. She further stated that she has married the applicant and from the documents available before the Court, it appears that the informant's daughter has delivered a son on 09.01.2023 out of wedlock with the applicant No.1.

¶17

10. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the applicant No.1 and the informant's daughter are leading a peaceful matrimonial life together and the informant also does not want continuation of the proceedings against the applicant No.1; as per the medico legal examination report, the victim was not a minor and, therefore, the offence under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act are not made out against the applicant No.1, I am of the view that continuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicants will result in their persecution only and would defeat ends of justice.

¶18

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, proceedings of Sessions Trial No.484 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.0436 of 2021 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, 16/17 POCSO Act,Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur as well as Charge-sheet No.1 dated 15.03.2023 pending before A.D.J., Court No.12, District Sultanpur are quashed.

¶19

12. The application is allowed .

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 prateek

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Vishwakarma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Vishwakarma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Others

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

Bharat Singh Bisht Vs Addl.Judge Family Court Lucknow and Another

Juvenile Delinquents 'R.P' Thru. His Father Chhotelal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Dr. Jitendra Pandey and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Faizabad and Ors.

Dharmesh Kumar Vs Smt. Anita Kumari and Another

Suneel Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another