Disposed

Veerpal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2024A482/26914/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged a summoning order in a POCSO and IPC case involving an alleged minor victim. Counsel relied on precedents regarding age discrepancy and a compromise showing the victim was 18 and had married the applicant with a child. The court granted liberty to file the original compromise before the trial court for verification and stayed trial proceedings until verification.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file original compromise before trial court within two weeks for verification; proceedings of Case No. 451 of 2019 stayed till next date except for verification purposes.

Veerpal vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26914 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Veerpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepankar Shukla,Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party No.1 State, Sri Praveen Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3. No one appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 4 and 5.

¶6

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 29th May, 2020 as well as proceedings of Case No. 451 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342 IPC and Section 5j (ii)/6 of POCSO Act, Police StationL Phaphund, District Auraiya.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits initially first information report was lodged by father of alleged victim under Sections 363, 366 and 342 IPC but upon charge sheet having been filed, the other sections have been included.

¶8

Learned counsel has drawn attention of the statement of alleged victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. to submit that she has admitted sexual relationship between the two and she specifically indicated her age as 18 years. It is submitted that there is discrepancy in the age of alleged victim as per the high school certificate and the ossification test and in such circumstances, it is the ossification test which should prevail if it is in favour of the accused. It is, therefore, submitted that sections indicated against the applicant are clearly not made out .

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has placed reliance on the short counter affidavit filed earlier dated 18th August, 2024 to submit that the parties have entered into a compromise dated 17th July, 2024, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the short counter affidavit indicating that the victim was 18 years of age and has married the applicant with whom she has a child.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/s 482 No. 7692 of 2024 on 13.09.2024 which in turn places reliance on another judgment of this Court in the case of Poonam Vs. State of U.P. [2015] 9 ADJ 166/[2016] 1 AllLJ547/ [2015]2 Supreme (All)1129.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid proposition.

¶12

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, liberty is granted to the applicant to file the original compromise before the trial court within a period of two weeks from today and appropriate order may be passed with regard to its verification.

¶13

List this case on 06.01.2024 as fresh.

¶14

Trial court is required to furnish a report with regard to orders passed for verification of the compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant may also bring the certified copy of the verification order on record.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, proceedings of Case No. 451 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342 IPC and Section 5j (ii)/6 of POCSO Act, Police StationL Phaphund, District Auraiya shall remain stayed except for the purposes of verification.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Kumar Manish.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Veerpal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerpal v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Naushad Ali vs Ravi Shanker and Another

Santosh Anand Srivastava vs Sunita and Others

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bahraich Thru. Asstt. Manager vs Dhandev and Others

Mohd. Anwar and 10 Others vs Saeed Ahmad and 20 Others

Union of India Thru. Gen. Manager Northern Railway New Delhi vs Ram Janki and 4 Others

Akshay Kumar Thru. Sunita Jaiswal vs Bhola Prasad Barnwal and Others