Disposed

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

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024/8433/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings involving Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO, the applicant alleged compromise and marriage. The High Court disposed of the application by remanding the verification of the alleged compromise to the trial court and granted a one-month stay on coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to lower court to verify compromise if filed; no coercive action for one month.

Arjun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70782

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8433 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No.49 of 2014 'State Vs. Arjun Kumar', arising out of Case Crime No.89 of 2014 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submit that no offence under the provisions of POCSO Act is made out. He also submits that as per the prosecution case, on the date of incident, victim was major as in her ossification test, her age was found 18 years. He further submits that victim was in love with the applicant and he was willing to enter into marriage with the applicant but her family members were against her wishes, as a result, he left the house, thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant but in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution story and now applicant as well as victim entered into marriage with different companions and they do not want to pursue the case. He also submits that victim is willing to drop the case against the applicant and settlement deed is also executed on 5.9.2024. The compromise which has taken place between the parties is also filed before this Court as Annexure No.9 to the application.

¶9

Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned

¶10

before the Court.

¶11

Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.

¶12

The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶13

For a period of one month, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶14

OfÏce is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicant, after taking the photocopy of the same.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 Gaurav/-

¶16

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishnu Prasad Shahu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vinod Kumar Tewari Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rama Kant Verma and Ors. Vs State of U.P and Anr.

Ram Kumar @ Ram Kumar Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Ankit Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Awadh Rani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another