Allowed

Ajay Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024A482/7089/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings regarding allegations under POCSO and IPC. Court allowed application noting victim married applicant, has a child, and does not support prosecution, deeming prosecution futile.

What did the court decide?

Intention to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.75/2017 as well as charge sheet dated 16.08.2017.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77175

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7089 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajay Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.75/2017; State Vs. Ajay Kashyap and Ors. pending before Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bahraich as well as charge sheet dated 16.08.2017 arising out of Case Crime No.907/2017 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, PS- Fakharpur, DistrictBahraich.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and victim were in love and the victim was willing to enter into marriage with the applicant but her family members were against her wish, as a result, she went with the applicant on her own, thereafter, on 02.11.2018, she entered into marriage with him. He further submits that the victim has not supported the prosecution version during the course of investigation, even then, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer. In her statement, victim has categorically stated that she is willing to live with the applicant. In the FIR of case in question, friend of the applicant, namely, Monu Maurya @ Amit Kumar Maurya was also dragged with the allegation that he has facilitated the applicant for taking away the victim. He further submits that the victim and applicant are enjoying their matrimonial life and they are also having one daughter, namely, Aradhya from their wedlock. He further submits that proceeding against Monu

¶8

Maurya @ Amit Kumar Maurya has already been set aside by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2023 in Application U/S 482 No.8353 of 2023. He further submits that the applicant and victim are living together and they are enjoying their married life, therefore, there is no possibility of conviction. In such circumstances, prosecution in question would be futile one.

¶9

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of applicant and submitted that after detailed investigation, charge sheet has been submitted but he does not dispute this fact that in the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C., she has not supported the prosecution version.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant has also conceded the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that victim is enjoying her matrimonial life with the applicant, they are having one daughter, therefore, the proceeding may be dropped.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of application, as well as other relevant documents, as the victim has not supported the prosecution version. As it is also evident that victim is enjoying her matrimonial life and they are having one daughter from their wedlock, therefore, the prosecution in question would be futile one.

¶12

In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the entire proceeding of Case No.75/2017; State Vs. Ajay Kashyap and Ors. pending before Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bahraich as well as charge sheet dated 16.08.2017 arising out of Case Crime No.907/2017 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, PS- Fakharpur, DistrictBahraich are hereby quashed.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.11.2024 V. Sinha

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 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

Gopal Ji Vs Dr. Rajnish Dube, Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lko.

Ram Saran Vs Mr. Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma Sub Divisional Magistrate, Distt. Barabanki and Another

Prem Chandra Soni Vs Shri M.Dev Raj, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Govt. Lko and Others

Durgesh Chandra Srivastav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Min. of Energy, Lucknow and 6 Others

Rajesh Kumar Dubey and Others vs Sri Sardar Singh, District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh

Pawan Kumar vs Parmanand and Others