Allowed

Pooja Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2024/8/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving allegations between husband and wife. The court found that the complainant, now the wife, was unwilling to prosecute after living peaceably with the accused and having a child, constituting a private dispute where quashing served the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 378 of 2021 and the stay applied for are granted; the petition allowed.

Pooja Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:874 A.F.R.

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8 of 2024 Applicant :- Pooja Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar,Santosh Kumar Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ram Raj Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

With the consent of parties, the case is being decided finally at the admission stage.

¶7

By means of this petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the following relief has been prayed :

¶8

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No. 378 of 2021 arising out of charge sheet dated 3.9.2020 filed by investigating officer in Crime No. 117 of 2020 u/s 376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C. relating to Police Station -Indira Nagar, District Lucknow in reState Versus Devendra Pratap Singh on the basis of compromise dated 29.12.2023, contained as Annexure No. -1 to the application, in the interest of justice.

¶9

Meanwhile, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Session Trial No. 378 of 2021 arising out of Crime No.-117 of 2020 under section -376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507 IPC relating to Police Station-Indira Nagar, District Lucknow pending in the court of Fast Track Court, Lucknow, in re- State Versus Devendra Pratap Singh, in the interest of justice."

¶10

Though the petitioners were not summoned to appear before the Court but they have appeared to convince the Court that they have settled their dispute amicably through registered compromise deed, the original copy thereof has been enclosed as Annexure no. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that having some wrong impression and confusion the petitioner no. 1 has lodged a F.I.R. on 14.3.2020 u/s 376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C. against the petitioner no. 2 and two others. However, the petitioner no. 1 married with the petitioner no. 2 on 6.12.2021 by adopting Hindu rituals and since then i.e. 6.12.2021 both are living together as husband and wife. On 27.11.2022 both became parents of one son. The parties are present in the Court with their son also.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that after lodging the F.I.R. the charge-sheet was filed, court concerned has taken cognizance, matter was committed to

¶12

sessions, thereafter charges were framed and trial proceeded. The Sessions Trial number is 378 of 2021. The chiefexamination of petitioner no. 1 has already taken place but she has not been cross-examined till date. On being asked from Ms. Pooja Bharti @ Pooja Singh as to whether she is willing to prosecute the petitioner no. 2 i.e. Devendra Pratap Singh and others in the sessions trial, she has specifically and categorically stated that the petitioner no. 2 is her husband, they are having one son, they are living peacefully together and she has no grudges or grievance against her husband or others against whom the allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R. At the same time the petitioner no. 2 i.e. Devendra Pratap Singh has also informed the Court that he is living with his wife Pooja Bharti @ Pooja Singh w.e.f. 6.12.2021, they are happily living, he has no grievance of any kind whatsoever against his wife i.e. Pooja Bharti @ Pooja Singh, therefore, he prayed that the criminal case pending against him may be set aside / quashed on the basis of aforesaid compromise.

¶13

Sri Ram Raj Singh, learned AGA has stated that though the sessions trial is in process wherein the cross-examination of complainant / petitioner no. 1 is to take place but if the complainant / informant herself is not willing to prosecute her husband i.e. petitioner no. 2 and they have entered into a compromise then any appropriate order to suffice the ends of justice may be passed.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as having regard to the statements, so recorded by the petitioners before the Court, more particularly, the statement of the petitioner no. 1 who is informant / complainant to the effect that she is not willing to contest the criminal case before the sessions court and she is not willing to prosecute her husband and others with whom she is living peacefully and she is also having son with the wedlock with the petitioner no. 2 and she has also stated that she has entered into an agreement / compromise with her free-will and without any coercion, so I find that no fruitful purpose would be served to proceed the sessions trial further. In the given facts and circumstances as considered above to permit the sessions trial further would not only be a sheer waste of time of sessions court but also may cause prejudice to the parties who are happily living as husband and wife since 6.12.2021 and are having son since 27.11.2022.

¶15

The purpose of criminal justice is to prosecute the wrong doer who has committed any offense but it would not be the purpose of the criminal justice to compel any person to face prosecution when the complainant / informant is his wife and

¶16

has admitted that on account of some wrong advice or under bad impression the case was lodged and she is not willing to contest the case. Besides, the facts and circumstances of the present case do not involve the serious allegations or any allegation relating to any offense against society and the dispute appears to be private in nature wherein the petitioner no. 1 has lodged a F.I.R. against the petitioner no. 2 who are admittedly husband and wife having one son, therefore, if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are set aside or quashed, it will not have any impact upon the society. The law is trite that the serious offences having impact upon the society may not be quashed or set aside on the basis of compromise but the minor offences or criminal offences which are not having any direct impact on the society, rather those offences are private in nature may be set aside / quashed on the basis of agreement. In these minor offences etc. the parties may not be compelled to face the trial proceedings when they are not interested to prosecute each other.

¶17

The Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Jatin Agarwal vs. State of Telangana, AIRONLINE 2022 SC 1464 has quashed the order of the High Court which was passed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissing the petition of the petitioner wherein it was pleaded before the High Court that the petitioner, Jatin Agarwal, has married with the lady and living happily with her as husband and wife, therefore, the F.I.R. u/s 417, 420 and 376 IPC may be quashed. However, the High Court rejected the petition, the Apex Court has observed that considering the aforesaid fact and keeping in a view that the lady has herself made a statement before the Apex Court that she has married with the appellant and now living happily, quashed the aforesaid F.I.R.

¶18

In the aforesaid case, notably both the petitioners are husband and wife and the petitioner no. 1 has herself made a statement before the Court that she has married the petitioner no. 2 and now living happily with him, therefore, I find this a fit case wherein the criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 378 of 2021 arising out of charge sheet dated 3.9.2020 filed by investigating officer in Crime No. 117 of 2020 u/s 376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C. relating to Police Station -Indira Nagar, District Lucknow in re- State Versus Devendra Pratap Singh is liable to be set-aside and quashed.

¶19

In view of the above, I hereby quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 378 of 2021 arising out of charge sheet dated 3.9.2020 filed by investigating officer in Crime No. 117 of 2020 u/s 376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C. relating to Police Station -Indira Nagar, District Lucknow in re- State Versus Devendra Pratap Singh pending in the court of Fast

¶20

Track Court, Lucknow.

¶21

The petitioners shall get their marriage registered under the "Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017" within one month from today.

¶22

In view of above, the petition is allowed .

¶23

Consequences to follow.

¶24

No order as to costs.

¶25

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶26

Order Date :- 4.1.2024/Om

¶27

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pooja Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Israr Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Harkesh Kumar Patel and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ibrahim and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Alok Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt.of Home and Another

Laddan Khan and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt of Up Civil Sectt Lko and 2 Others

Umesh Kumar Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another