Jagjeevan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9543

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 129 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Jagjeevan

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sant Lal Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Himanshu Kamboj

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed by the State in Court today is taken on record.

¶8

The applicant and the opposite party no. 3/victim are present before this Court, who have been identified by Shri Sant Lal Dixit, Advocate and Shri Himanshu Kamboj, Advocate, appearing for the said parties.

¶9

Annexure No. CA-1 of Counter Affidavit filed by the State indicates that the service of notice upon opposite party no. 2/informant is sufficient. However, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2/informant to oppose the present application. In this view of the matter, this Court proceeds to decide the application on merits with the help of learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and Himanshu Kamboj, learned counsel for the victim/opposite party no. 3.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief:-

¶12

"to quash Charge Sheet No. A-298/18 dated 13.12.2018 (contained as Annexure no. 1) and impugned Cognizance & Summoning order dated 08.01.2019 (contained as Annexure no. 2) whereby Cognizance has been taken and Summons have been issued against the applicant/accused in Session Trial No. 04/2019 (State Vs. Jagjeevan)

¶13

arising out of Case Crime No. 323 of 2018, under Section(s) 363 & 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 & 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Satarikh, District - Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh and further stay all the other consequential proceedings of the present case pending before Learned Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (First)/Special Judge POCSO Act, Barabanki, in the ends and interest of justice."

¶14

It is stated that applicant and victim/opposite party No. 3 were having affair and victim/opposite party No. 3 was inclined to marry him and both were known to each other.

¶15

It is further stated that the relationship of victim/opposite party No. 5 and applicant was not acknowledged/accepted by the opposite party no.2/father of the victim/opposite party No. 3 and therefore an FIR No. 323 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act was lodged against the applicant. According to this FIR, the opposite party no. 3, a minor, was enticed away by the applicant.

¶16

It is further stated that in fact, the victim/opposite party No. 3, on her own volition, left house of her parents and accompanied the applicant to Ludhiana where the applicant and the victim/opposite party No. 3 solemnized marriage and started living as husband and wife.

¶17

It is further submitted that the on being recovered, the statement of the victim was recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and in view of these statements, the victim levelled allegations against the applicant. However, the same are not correct as the same were given under pressure of the opposite party no. 2/complainant/informant and the fact that the victim levelled allegations against the applicant during the investigation can be deduced from the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 2931 of 2024 filed by the victim and the applicant, a copy of which is

¶18

Annexure No. 7 to the application. The order is extracted hereinunder:

¶19

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State/opposite parties and perused the record.

¶20

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for issuance of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to harass the petitioners and interfere in their peaceful married life.

¶21

3. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are major and have married with each other by their own free will on 10.11.2023 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. The copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Society for Scientific Research, Barabanki has been annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. Petitioner no.1 has filed a copy of progress report of Class-VIII as Annexure-1 and petitioner no.2 has filed a copy of his Aadhar Card as Annexure-3 as proof of age. They are enjoying and living peaceful matrimonial life. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that there is no F.I.R. against the petitioners and they are not wanted in any criminal case, yet the police is harassing them at the behest of family members, who are not agreeable to the marriage. Therefore, this petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to interfere in peaceful married life of the petitioners.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners are in the process of getting their marriage registered. He submits that he will file marriage registration certificate within a period of ten days from today.

¶23

5. On his request, list this case on 14.5.2024 at 2:15 p.m.

¶24

6. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that if the petitioners have married each other and are living together, were of marriageable age on the date of their marriage and they are not wanted in any criminal case, then the police shall not unnecessarily interfere in their peaceful married life."

¶25

It is also stated that age indicated by the victim during the recording of the statement under the pressure of victim/opposite party no. 2 and the documents based upon which prosecution has invoked provisions of POCSO Act are in fact incorrect as upon due medical examination, the victim was found about eighteen years old and in view of the facts of the case as also that the applicant and the victim/opposite party No. 3 are living together as husband and wife, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex

¶26

Court Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397 , shall be extended in favour of the applicant and the opposite party no.3/victim both.

¶27

It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter, as otherwise, entire matrimonial life of applicant and opposite party No. 5 would be ruined.

¶28

The victim/opposite party No. 3 present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune.

¶29

Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra) , Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435 , according to which, inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, and also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, 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,

¶30

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 , according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 323 of 2018 , quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

¶31

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

¶32

Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Mohit Singh/-

¶33

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

Jagjeevan v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjeevan v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

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

Javed Ahmad @ Javed and 3 others Vs State of U.P. thru its principal sec. deptt. of home and another and

Priya Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Mohd. Nouman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abbu Sayyub @ Azad Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Surjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Dilbahar Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another