Rakesh @ Rakesh Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62828

Court No. - 13

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7473 of 2024

Applicant :- Rakesh @ Rakesh Giri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd.Mateen Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shahid Salam

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

In terms of order of this Court, the opposite party no. 5 (victim) along with a minor child born out of wedlock of the applicant and the opposite party no. 5 (victim) is present before this Court, who has been identified by Shri Shahid Salam, Advocate, appearing for the said party.

¶7

Heard Sri Mohd.Mateen, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Shahid Salam, learned counsel for the the opposite party no. 5.

¶8

Taking note of the facts of the case, issuance of notice to the privateopposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶9

The present application has been filed with following main prayer:

¶10

"to quash entire criminal proceedings of Session case no. 68/2024 (State of U.P. versus Rakesh @ Rakesh Giri), which is pendig before the Special Judge POCSO Act, Balrampur and also quashed the summoning order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the Special Judge POCSO Act, Balrampur contained as Annexure No. 12 to this petition in the interest of justice."

¶11

It is stated that an FIR lodged by the the opposite party no. 2 making allegations therein to attract the offense under Sections 363 IPC registered as Case Crime no. 0338 of 2022 on 21.10.2022. According to this FIR the applicant enticed away the minor daughter of the the opposite party no. 2/informant.

¶12

It is also stated that according to the birth certificate (Annexure No. 2) issued under issued under Sections 12/17 of the Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969 and Rules 8/13 of the Uttar Pradesh Registration of Births and Death Rules, 2002, the victim was born on 01.01.2004 and as such the victim was major, aged about eighteen years and nine months.

¶13

It is also stated that after lodging of the FIR, during investigation the

¶14

statement(s) of the victim as required under Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., respectively were recorded. According to these statements, the opposite party no. 5/victim, aged about 20 years, on her own volition, left the house of her parents on 19.10.2022 and accompanied the applicant to Hyderabad and also solemnized the marriage with the applicant. These statements also indicate that the victim was ill-treated by her father and she was in affair with the applicant.

¶15

It is also stated that the victim, during investigation, was medically examined on 18.01.2024 and according to the doctor's opinion, she, at the time of examination, was aged about 19 years and mean age which was determined by the doctor is 18.16 years as evident from Annexure No. 9.

¶16

It is further stated that the applicant and the victim are blessed with a male child on 21.07.2023, which is apparent from Annexure No. 10.

¶17

It is further stated that the applicant and the victim are living happily under one roof as husband and wife along with a minor and in these facts and circumstances of the case, the indulgence of this Court is required.

¶18

It is also stated that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of victim and the applicant as also the future of minor would be ruined.

¶19

It is also stated that in view of the fact of the instant case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397 , shall be extended in favour of the applicant and the opposite party no.5/victim both and the minor son of the both.

¶20

On being asked, the opposite party no. 5/victim has not disputed the aforesaid.

¶21

Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra) , Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court as also in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online

¶22

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, 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 as also taking note of the nature of dispute/crime and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of opposite party no. 5/victim and the applicant as also the future of minor would be ruined and further, that in the given facts of the case chances of conviction are extremely bleak, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings of Session Case no. 68/2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 0338 of 2022 , quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

¶23

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶24

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶25

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

Rakesh @ Rakesh Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh @ Rakesh Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kallu Rawat @ Lallan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

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

Om Prakash and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Anuj Alias Anuj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Mohd. Faruk Siddiqui @ Mohd. Faruk and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko. and Another

Mamta Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and and Another