Bhola @ Shabi Haider Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13787

Court No. - 12

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1376 of 2025 Applicant :- Bhola @ Shabi Haider Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Pratap Singh,Ram Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anand Pratap Singh, learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2 and victim/opposite party no.3, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

¶6

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

¶7

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an order allowing the petition quashing the entire proceedings of the S.T. No.829/2018 and Charge Sheet No.03/2019 dated 10.07.2019 arising out from the Case Crime No.225/2018, Under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. & 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station Saadatganj, District Lucknow in "State Versus Salman @ Mohsin & others" pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act IInd, Lucknow."

¶8

It is stated that the victim, who was in affair with the applicant, on 10.07.2018 left her parental house on her own volition and accompanied the applicant.

¶9

It is further stated that the informant/opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR on 11.07.2018 at P.S. Saadatganj, District -Lucknow registered as Case Crime No.0225, under Sections 363 I.P.C. According to this FIR, the victim/opposite party no.3, aged about 16 years, at about 11:50 A.M left her parental house. As per this FIR, one Ayesha was involved in the incident.

¶10

It is also stated that during investigation the name of the applicant surfaced as the victim/opposite party no.3 was with the applicant and the applicant solemnized marriage with the victim/opposite party no.3 on 17.07.2018.

¶11

It is stated that the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer after taking note of the age indicated in the FIR as also the date of birth mentioned in the school record, i.e. 10.03.2003.

¶12

It is further stated that the date of birth indicated in the school

¶13

record was not correctly recorded. It is for the reason that upon medical examination of the victim on 06.08.2018 the doctor concerned opined that the victim is 18 years old and the date of birth indicated in the Aadhar Card, i.e. 10.03.2000.

¶14

It is also stated that in so far as age of victim/opposite party no.3 indicated in the school records is concerned, the same was not correctly recorded and there is no evidence to support/establish the age of the victim recorded in the school records and in view of the same as also the facts of the instant case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex 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.

¶15

It is also stated that a perusal of the statements of the victim recorded in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., annexed as Annexure nos.4 and 5 (typed copies) would indicate that victim, aged about 18-19 years, on her own volition, left her parental house and accompanied the applicant and thereafter solemnized marriage on 17.07.2018.

¶16

It is also stated that presently the applicant and victim/opposite party no.3 are living as husband and wife under one roof alongwith one minor child and the victim is carrying pregnancy of six months.

¶17

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 victim/opposite party no.3 as also future of their minor would be ruined.

¶18

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

¶19

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, 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 FIR/Case Crime No.0225 of 2018, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Anand/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhola @ Shabi Haider v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola @ Shabi Haider v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Sadiqa Bano @ Sadiqa Ishtiyaq Ahmed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Smt. Vimla Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Madhukar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Chhotelal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ashok @ Ashok Kumar vs District Magistrate/ Collector, Hardoi and Others

Chintamani Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home District Lko. and 2 Others