Allowed

Vivek Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2024A482/2385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings, including chargesheets and non-bailable warrants, against an applicant and former victim who have since married and have children. The court noted the FIR was due to family opposition, the victim admitted intimacy, and no evidence contradicted the joint affidavit filed by the parties.

What did the court decide?

Chargesheet No. 40 of 2016, non-bailable warrants dated 24.03.2022 and 06.07.2023, and proceedings under S.T. No. 46 of 2016 are quashed.

Vivek Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22107

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2385 of 2024 Applicant :- Vivek Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Pathak,Alok Kirti Mishra,Durgesh Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Rupa Singh, leaned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The applicant and the victim were intimate. FIR in the criminal proceedings are the result of the opposition of the grandfather of the victim to the said relationship. The grandfather has since expired. On the date of the marriage the victim was major. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. The applicant and the victim have since got married. They have been living a blissful matrimonial after their marriage. Two children were born in the wed lock. The son is six years of age and the daughter is of one year. The couple is present in Court. They have identified by the respective learned counsels.

¶7

The parties have stated before the Court that they are happily married and have two children. The victim who is the wife of the first informant and whose grandfather has expired would not like to prosecute the case.

¶8

A joint affidavit has also been filed in the Court by the parties.

¶9

Nothing to the contrary has been shown from the records available with the learned AGA.

¶10

In view of above Chargesheet No. 40 of 2016 dated 18.04.2016 and non bailable warrants dated 24.03.2022 and 06.07.2023 issued by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Pratapgarh and the proceedings of S.T. No. 46 of 2016 andarising out of Case Crime No. 92 of 2015 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Aaspur Deosara, District Pratapgarh are quashed.

¶11

The application U/S 482 is allowed.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.3.2024 Pravin

¶13

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vivek Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sugreev Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Zulfiqar Husain @ Sheru vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kallu @ Mohd. Rashid vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

X Juvenile of Case Crime No. 161/2023 Thru. His Natural Guardian and Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Pujan Shukla @ Mandhauli and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Shri Ram and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another