Allowed

Manoj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024A482/33/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of a charge sheet and trial proceedings arising from an FIR alleging enticement of a minor. The applicant had married the victim, who wished to live with him, and parties compromised. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, proceedings against the applicant were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet no.1 of 2015 dated 17.01.2015 and entire Special Sessions Trial No.9 of 2014 proceedings quashed qua the applicant.

Manoj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1287

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amitabh Chaudhary, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Harsh Vardhan Singh, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the informant and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶7

2. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet no.1 of 2015, dated 17.01.2015 along with the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.9 of 2014: State Vs. Ajay Verma and another, arising out of Case Crime No.107 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 372, 373, 376 (1) I.P.C. and Section 3-क/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002, lodged at Police Station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar on the basis of compromise.

¶8

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 21.08.2014 alleging that the named accused Ajay Verma had enticed away the informant's minor daughter and the co-accused Dilip Pandey had assisted him. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R.

¶9

4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that the applicant had taken her away and has married her. She categorically stated that she wants to live

¶10

with the applicant only. A similar statement was given by the opposite party no.3 before the Magistrate.

¶11

5. During pendency of the proceedings the parties have entered into a compromise, wherein it is stated that the opposite party no.3 has married the applicant and living with him as his wife for the past nine years and two children have born out of the wedlock between the opposite party no.3 and the applicant.

¶12

6. The learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 does not have any objection, if the impugned proceedings are quashed against the applicant.

¶13

7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

8. Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another : (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise of futility.

¶15

9. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present petition is allowed and the charge sheet no.1 of 2015, dated 17.01.2015 along with the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.9 of 2014: State Vs. Ajay Verma and another, arising out of Case Crime No.107 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 372, 373, 376 (1) I.P.C. and Section 3-क/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002, lodged at Police Station Ibrahimpur, District

¶16

Ambedkar Nagar pertaining to the applicant are hereby quashed.

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 5.1.2024 Ram.

¶19

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

Manoj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 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

Bablu @ Harinam Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Satish Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

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