Allowed

Nafis Ahmad Alias Mohammad Nafis v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024/1605/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed criminal proceedings under IPC and POCSO sections filed against an applicant by his victim's brother. The court found a valid compromise, a genuine marriage, and living together with a minor child.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1247 of 2020 arising under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act are quashed.

Nafis Ahmad Alias Mohammad Nafis Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45246

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1605 of 2024 Applicant :- Nafis Ahmad Alias Mohammad Nafis Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Alishah Faruqi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Suhail

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as also Mohd. Suhail, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3.

¶6

Mohd. Sharukh, opposite party No. 2/Complainant, is present before this Court, (brought and identified by Sri Ajay Prakash, Sub Inspector) in terms of order of this Court dated 20.02.2024, whereby the appearance of the victim (opposite party No.3) was dispensed with.

¶7

Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1247 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 277 of 2020, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.-Jayas, District-Amethi, pending before ASI, POCSO Act IInd, Rai Bareli.

¶8

This Court on 20.02.2024 passed the following order:-

¶9

"1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 3 is taken on record.

¶10

2. Heard Mohd. Alishah Faruqi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aatreya Tripathi, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Mohd. Suhail, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3.

¶11

3. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶12

4. Steps be taken within a week.

¶13

5. Office to proceed accordingly.

¶14

6. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the Criminal Proceedings in Case No. 1247 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 277 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Jayas, District Amethi, pending before ASJ, POCSO Act-IInd, Rai Bareli, on the basis of compromise deed (Annexure no. 9 to the petition).

¶15

7. Today, the petitioner, Nafis Ahmad @ Mohammad Nafis and the Victim 'X'/opposite party no. 3 are present in person.

¶16

8. The victim has stated that when she got married with the petitioner, she was aged about 17 years and 7 months. She was in love affairs with the petitioner. Now they are having an infant son of 3 months. The victim has further stated that she is living happily with the petitioner as his wife and she has no grievance of any kind whatsoever against the petitioner. She has further submitted that the

¶17

petitioner is properly looking after her and her child, therefore, the complaint/FIR which has been lodged by her elder brother may be quashed. She has further stated that her brother, the complainant, opposite party no. 2 was not happy with the marriage, therefore, he lodged the impugned FIR.

¶18

9. Sri Nafis Ahmad @ Mohammad Nafis, the petitioner has also stated that he and opposite party no. 3 are living as husband and wife happily. He is properly looking after her and his infant child. He has further submitted that the allegations in the impugned FIR are false and misconceived, therefore, the proceedings may be quashed.

¶19

10. Since the complainant, opposite party no. 2, is not present before the Court, therefore, on the next date, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 shall appear in person before the Court.

¶20

11. Station House Officer, Police Station Jayas, District Amethi shall ensure the presence of the complainant on the next date by apprising the date fixed by this Court.

¶21

12. Learned AGA shall intimate the next date fixed by this Court to SHO, Police Station Jayas, District Amethi through telephonically/e-mail/ any other convenient mode for its compliance.

¶22

13. List this case on 13.03.2024. On that date, the petitioner and opposite party no. 3, the victim, need not appear again. However, on that date, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 shall appear in person.

¶23

14. Until further orders of the Court, the proceedings of Case No. 1247 of 2020 (supra) shall remain stayed.

¶24

15. In the meantime, the petitioner and opposite party no. 3 may register their marriage before the Competent Authority. "

¶25

Considering the order of this Court dated 20.02.2024 and the fact that the opposite party no. 2/complainant is present, on being asked, Ms. Suniti Sachan, Advocate, has assisted this Court and communicated the issue involved in the present case to the opposite party no. 2/complainant and who thereafter, before this Court stated that the victim is his sister and as per medical opinion, the victim was 18 years old at the time of lodging of FIR against the applicant and presently both the parties i.e. applicant (Nafis Ahmad Alias Mohammad Nafis) and opposite party No. 3/victim are living as husband and wife after solemnizing the marriage in accordance with Muslim Rites and Rituals with minor child, as such, he has no objection if the present application is decided in terms of compromise entered between the parties dated 06.02.2024, which is annexed as Annexure No.9 to this application.

¶26

For the relief(s) sought, on the basis of compromise, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58,

¶27

Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 .

¶28

Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.

¶29

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, statement(s) of the opposite party no. 2/complainant and the opposite party no. 3/victim, indicated in the order dated 20.01.2024, and the fact that the applicant and the opposite party no. 3/victim are enjoying the married life with their minor son under one roof as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, and the fact that if the prayer sought in this application is refused then in that eventuality the matrimonial life of the applicant and the opposite party no. 3/victim as also the development and future prospects of minor would be received, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1247 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 277 of 2020, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.-Jayas, District-Amethi, are hereby quashed.

¶30

Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in above terms.

¶31

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to concerned Court forthwith.

¶32

Order Date :- 3.7.2024/Vinay/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nafis Ahmad Alias Mohammad Nafis v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nafis Ahmad Alias Mohammad Nafis v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ranjay Kumar Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Suman Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Prabhat Verma and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Ram Naresh Yadav @ Ram Naresh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Raviker Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Rajesh Jaiswal @ Gudda Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow