Allowed

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024/32/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed the FIR, charge sheet, and criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant for offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The quashing was granted due to a valid compromise settlement reached by the parties, deeming further proceedings an exercise in futility.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet, summoning order, and entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.107 of 2019 qua the applicant are quashed.

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1275

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Vikas Verma, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amitabh Chaturvedi, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the informant/opposite party no.4 and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶7

2. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet no.A-194 of 2019 dated 04.10.2019, summoning order dated 23.10.2019 along with the entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.107 of 2019: State Vs. Virendra Kumar, arising out of Case Crime No.207 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, lodged at Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Ambedkar Nagar on the basis of compromise.

¶8

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 23.07.2019 alleging that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter aged about 17 years.

¶9

4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she is aged about 19 years, she loves the applicant and she had gone with him out of her own freewill and she was living with the applicant. She categorically stated

¶10

that the applicant did not commit any misdeed.

¶11

5. During pendency of the proceedings the parties have entered into a settlement, copy whereof has been annexed with the affidavit which shows that it has been signed by the applicant, the complainant and the victim. The victim has stated her age in the compromise to be 25 years and she has stated that she is living with the applicant as his wife for the past five years and the parties want to get the proceedings closed on the basis of compromise.

¶12

6. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.4/complainant submits that the opposite party No.4 does not have any objection, if the impugned proceedings are quashed against the applicant.

¶13

7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

8. Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another : (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

¶15

9. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present petition is allowed and the charge sheet no.A-194 of 2019 dated 04.10.2019, summoning order dated 23.10.2019 along with the entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.107 of 2019: State Vs. Virendra Kumar, arising out of Case Crime No.207

¶16

of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, lodged at Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Ambedkar Nagar qua the applicant are hereby quashed.

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 5.1.2024 Ram.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bablu @ Harinam Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Satish Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another