Allowed

Surya Bali @ Bachcha Ram v. State of U.P. Nad Another

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2024/2674/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. It held that since the victim is legally married to the applicant and they have three children, continuing the trial is a futile exercise.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings in Case No.899 of 2012, State Vs. Bachcha Ram @ Surya Bali, CRC 105 of 2012, P.S. Bhinga are set aside.

Surya Bali @ Bachcha Ram Vs State of U.P. Nad Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2674 of 2013

¶3

Applicant :- Surya Bali @ Bachcha Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Nad Another Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Jaiswal,Sanjiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer to quash the proceeding of Case No.899 of 2012 (State Vs. Bachcha Ram @ Surya Bali) in Case Crime No.105 of 2012, P.S. Bhinga, District Shrawasti.

¶7

In pursuance of earlier order, report of Mr. Shamshad Ali, Sub Inspector, Police Station Bhinga, District Shrawasti dated 18.11.2024 is placed before this Court by learned A.G.A. and informs that Krishna Kumar S/o Chhote Lal informed that Chhote Lal died four years ago, village Pradhan is also supported the version of Krishna Kumar. Report placed before this Court by police ofÏcial is taken on record alongwith enclosures.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was in love with the daughter of the complainant and she was willing to enter into marriage with him but her father was against her wishes and was keen to solemnize her marriage with his choice, as a result, she left the house and join the company of the applicant. He further submits that on the basis of incorrect facts, F.I.R. in question was lodged and charge sheet was also submitted. He also submits that statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she categorically denied the prosecution story and stated that she is willing to live with her husband/applicant. He also drew the attention of the court on the supplementary afÏdavit filed by the applicant enclosing afÏdavit of the victim, in which, she categorically stated that she is legally wedded wife of the applicant, her marriage was registered on 28.7.2011 and out of their wedlock,

¶9

three children, namely, Anuj Yadav, Bablu Yadav & Roli Yadav. He further submits that victim does not want to pursue the case as she is enjoying her matrimonial life alongwith her husband/applicant, therefore, impugned proceedings may be quashed.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant but he does not dispute this fact that victim is not supported the prosecution story in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., supplementary afÏdavit, it is evident that victim entered into marriage with the applicant and they are enjoying their matrimonial life, now they are having three kids. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that criminal trial is a futile exercise, therefore, impugned proceeding is hereby, set aside.

¶12

In view of the above, the present application is allowed .

¶13

Copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, forthwith.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.11.2024 Gaurav/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surya Bali @ Bachcha Ram v. State of U.P. Nad Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Bali @ Bachcha Ram v. State of U.P. Nad Another

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

Geeta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Sharda Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko and Another

Nitin Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ajay Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Baba Din and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Suresh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.