Disposed

Arjun Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024A482/8433/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings alleging POCSO and IPC offences. High Court deferred determination of compromise validity to lower court, directed verification of settlement deed, prohibited coercive action for one month, and stayed proceedings pending such verification.

What did the court decide?

Compromise verification reserved to lower court; coercive action stayed for one month; leave to approach High Court again after verification.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70782

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8433 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arjun Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No.49 of 2014 'State Vs. Arjun Kumar', arising out of Case Crime No.89 of 2014 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submit that no offence under the provisions of POCSO Act is made out. He also submits that as per the prosecution case, on the date of incident, victim was major as in her ossification test, her age was found 18 years. He further submits that victim was in love with the applicant and he was willing to enter into marriage with the applicant but her family members were against her wishes, as a result, he left the house, thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant but in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution story and now applicant as well as victim entered into marriage with different companions and they do not want to pursue the case. He also submits that victim is willing to drop the case against the applicant and settlement deed is also executed on 5.9.2024. The compromise which has taken place between the parties is also filed before this Court as Annexure No.9 to the application.

¶9

Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned

¶10

before the Court.

¶11

Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.

¶12

The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶13

For a period of one month, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶14

Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicant, after taking the photocopy of the same.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 Gaurav/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arjun Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 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

Mohammad Arif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shree Girraj Educational and Welfare Society Thru. Its Secy. Nand Kishore Sharma and Another Vs Dr. Alok Kumar Secy. U.P. State Medical Faculty Lko.

M/S Impulse Microelectronics Peripheral Systems Thru. Proprietor Rajesh Sachan Vs Smt. Jyoti Maurya Chief Manager Administration/Chairman U.P. Corp. Sugar Factories Federation Ltd.

Shyam Mohan Tiwari Vs K. Ravindra Nayak I.a.S., Prin. Secy. Secrtt. Administration Civil Secrtt., Lko.

Hriday Narayan Tiwari Vs Shri Rajiv Kumar Srivastava, Addl. General Manager / Unit Head R.B. Iti Ltd. Raebareli

Jagdish Kumar Vs Dr. Devesh Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. and Another