Allowed

Sachin Yadav @ Shubham v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin.Secy. Home and 4 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024A482/3092/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Section 482 CrPC application to quash criminal proceedings (ST No. 641/2017) involving kidnapping, trafficking, rape, and POCSO. Quashing was based on subsequent marriage, compromise, minor children, and bleak conviction prospects.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC allowed; entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 357/2014 are quashed.

Sachin Yadav @ Shubham vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55511

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3092 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sachin Yadav @ Shubham Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Its Prin.Secy. Home And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Alishah Faruqi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Suhail

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

As per the letter of C.J.M. dated 04.05.2024, dated and Office Report dated 05.05.2024, the service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2 is sufficient. However, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

Instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned proceedings of ST No. 641/2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 357/2014, under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. PGI, District Lucknow pending in the Court of Special Judge POCSO Act- IIIrd, Lucknow

¶9

Considering the facts that the applicant and the opposite party no. 3 were in affair and the family members of opposite party no. 3 were not happy with this relationship and therefore the FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2 making allegations to attract the offense under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO and at relevant point of time, as per medical opinion, the victim was major aged about eighteen years as also that during the investigation, the victim did not support the story of the prosecution and thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed and after filing of charge-sheet, the victim solemnized the marriage with the applicant on 11.02.2016 and the applicant and the victim are living under one roof with two minor children, this Court vide order dated 02.08.2024 referred the matter to the Senior Registrar of this Court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶10

It further appears from record that in compliance of order of this Court dated 02.08.2024, the Senior Registrar of this Court has submitted his report dated 06.08.2024 regarding verification of compromise, which is on record, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels.

¶11

In the aforesaid background of the case, learned counsel for the parties stated that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter, the settled family having two minor children would become unsettled and continuation of the proceedings would shatter the family structure and which would ruin the entire future/career of the minors, accordingly in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the indulgence of this Courts is required.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online 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 the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter the entire family would be ruined hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 357/2014 , quoted above, are hereby quashed.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶15

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

Sachin Yadav @ Shubham v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin.Secy. Home and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Yadav @ Shubham v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin.Secy. Home 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

Vijay Kumar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Narottam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Juvenile X Criminal Case No. 60/2022, Thru. His Father and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Jumman Khan and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Anuj Pandey and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Mohd. Imran Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another