Allowed¶17

Vijay and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2025A482/10689/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing; POCSO and IPC 363/366/376/34 charges; compromise between accused and victim; marriage of accused and victim; verified compromise report; charge sheet and cognizance/summon order quashed; Sessions Trial No.822 of 2017; Case Crime No.118 of 2016; P.S. Chauri-Chaura, Gorakhpur; star witness would not support prosecution; K. Dhandapani (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056); Mafat Lal (2022) 6 SCC 589; happy family life; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:139314; decided 14.8.2025.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; charge sheet dated 21.04.2017, cognizance/summon order dated 27.04.2017 and the entire criminal proceedings/trial (Sessions Trial No.822 of 2017) arising out of Case Crime No.118 of 2016 quashed. ¶17

Vijay and Another vs State of Up and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 21.04.2017, the cognizance/summon order dated 27.04.2017 and the entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.822 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.118 of 2016 (Sections 363, 366, 376, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 and 17/18 POCSO Act) should be quashed in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶7

Court's answer

Where the parties have entered into a compromise and buried their differences, and the star witness would not support the prosecution case, there is no point in continuing the trial.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The charge sheet and the proceedings arising out of the case crime number mentioned above are quashed, and consequently the proceedings of trial are also quashed.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Avnish Saxena, J.) allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the charge sheet dated 21.04.2017, the cognizance/summon order dated 27.04.2017 and the entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.822 of 2017 (State Vs. Vijay and another), arising out of Case Crime No.118 of 2016, Police Station Chauri-Chaura, District Gorakhpur, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 and 17/18 POCSO Act pending before the Special Judge POCSO (3), Gorakhpur. The compromise between the accused-applicants and the victim had been verified by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Rape and POCSO)-3, Gorakhpur pursuant to an order dated 19.04.2024 of a coordinate Bench, and it was submitted that the applicants and the victim are married with children. Relying on K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056) and Mafat Lal and another Vs. The State of Rajasthan (2022) 6 SCC 589, the Court held that where the parties have buried their differences and the star witness would not support the prosecution case, there is no point in continuing the trial.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139314

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10689 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Kumar,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 21.04.2017, cognizance/summon order dated 27.04.2017 as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Sessions Trial No.822 of 2017 (State Vs. Vijay and another), arising out of Case Crime No.118 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and 17/18 POCSO Act, Police Station Chauri-Chaura, District Gorakhpur, pending before Special Judge POCSO (3), Gorakhpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have entered into compromise. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the mother of victim.

¶9

It is by order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the compromise has been sent for verification.

¶10

The report dated 03.05.2024 of Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Rape and POCSO)-3, Gorakhpur reveals that the compromise has been verified.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also filed short counter affidavit annexing the compromise entered into between the parties. It is further submitted that the applicants are husband and wife, married, having children.

¶12

The Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police (2022 SCC Online SC 1056) has set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused affirmed by the High Court in the matter of POCSO Act considering that the accused and victim are living happily in their married life and

¶13

held that "This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix" .

¶14

The Apex Court in another case of Mafat Lal and another Vs. The State of Rajasthan (2022) 6 SCC 589 has quashed the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings of offence U/s 363, 366 I.P.C. considering the marriage of accused and victim.

¶15

There is no point in getting the trial continued, when the parties have buried their differences as the star witness would not support the prosecution case.

¶16

Thus, the charge sheet and the proceeding arose out of case crime number mentioned above is hereby quashed. Consequently, the proceedings of trial also quashed.

¶17

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Shivangi

¶19

(Avnish Saxena, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lala Ji vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and Another

Saksham Patel and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mayaram Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Jai Prakash Pathak @ Kinni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Chauhan vs State of Up and Another