Neeraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1459 of 2025

Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Kant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suhail Kashif

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

The present case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 of B.N.S.S. with the following prayers:-

¶6

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.: 815 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.: 385 of 2020, State V/s Neeraj, Under-Section: 363,366,376 I.P.C and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station: Bachhrawan, District: Raibareli., Pending in the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act) I-st, District: Raibareli. and as well as impugned chargesheet dated 31.08.2020 submitted against the petitioner by the investigating officer in aforesaid case crime no. as well cognizance order passed against the petitioner passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) I-st, District: Raibareli., as contained in Annexure No.1 to the instant petition, in the light of compromise, took place between the parties, in the interest of Law and Justice."

¶7

On 25.02.2025, this Court had passed an interim order, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶8

"1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Suhail Kashif, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 is taken on record.

¶9

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶10

3. The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 31.08.2020 arising out of Case Crime No.385 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, PS- Bachhrawan, District- Raibareli as well as entire proceeding related to the Case No.815 of 2020; State Vs. Neeraj, pending before Special Judge (POCSO Act)-I, Raibareli.

¶11

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of alleged incident, victim was major and she was in love with the applicant but her family members were willing to marry her with someone else, as a result, victim left her home on her own and joined the company of applicant, thereafter, they entered into marriage in a temple. Due to annoyance, complainant (grandmother of victim) lodged FIR against the applicant. He further submits that during the course of investigation, statement of victim was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, in which, she categorically denied the prosecution story, her age was also found 18 years in the ossification test but without considering the contents of statement of victim as well as ossification test, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that victim and applicant are living as husband and wife, they are enjoying their married life and from their wedlock, one son has also born. In such circumstances, trial of the case in question would be futile one. Therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶12

5. Learned AGA vehemently opposes the prayer of applicant and submits that after detailed investigation, charge sheet has been submitted but he does not dispute on the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. or result of ossification test.

¶13

6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 also does not dispute this fact that victim (respondent no.3) and applicant are living as husband and wife, they are enjoying their married life and from their wedlock, one son has also born. He also concedes this fact that at the time of alleged incident, victim was major.

¶14

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of application, as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC does not support the prosecution version. According to the ossification test, victim was 18 years old at the time of alleged incident. It is also a undisputed fact that victim and applicant are living as husband and wife and from their wedlock, they have a son aged about 2 years. In such circumstances, matter requires consideration.

¶15

8. List this case in the first week of May, 2025.

¶16

9. Until further order, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed. "

¶17

Thereafter, during the pendency of the present application, a compromise has been entered into between the parties i.e. between the applicant and the respondent nos. 2 & 3 (complainant and victim respectively) by means of compromise deed dated 18.01.2025. Copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure no. 8 to the present application.

¶18

Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that they are living happy married life and now they are having a son aged about two years out of the wedlock, as such the respondent no. 2 (the complainant) does not want to pursue any criminal case against the applicant and the proceedings may be quashed.

¶19

In support of her submission, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has relied upon the judgment dated 28.02.2025 of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 001005 of 2025), in which the criminal proceedings in the matter pertaining to Section 376 and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act have been quashed on the pretext that the appellant and the respondent are leading a happy married life and having children. The relevant paragraph nos. 7, 8 & 9 of the same are quoted hereinbelow:-

¶20

"7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and their children.

¶21

8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the marriage certificate was placed on record before the High Court. In fact, no objection by the first informant is also recorded in the impugned order. Surprisingly,

¶22

the High Court instead of entertaining the petition for quashing on the ground of settlement, has observed that the application for dropping criminal proceedings on the basis compromise may be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement and in fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have been forced to come to this Court.

¶23

9. The impugned order is set aside. FIR No. 567 of 2016 registered with Cholapur Police Station, District Varanasi and proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 1332 of 2021 pending before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Varanasi are hereby quashed."

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that a liberty may be given to the applicant to file the original copy of the compromise along with the application before the trial court within a period of one week for the purpose of verification of said compromise entered into between the parties and the court below may be directed to verify the compromise.

¶25

As prayed, a week's time is granted to the applicant to file the original copy of the compromise before the Court below and the court below shall verify the same on 09.05.2025. On the said date all the signatories to the compromise shall appear before the court concerned.

¶26

List this case in the week commencing 19.05.2025.

¶27

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶28

The applicant shall file an affidavit bringing on record the certified copy of the order of verification passed by the concerned court by the next date of listing.

¶29

Office is directed to return the original copy of the compromise, after retaining photostat copy of the same.

¶30

Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Nitesh

¶31

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Neeraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Mukesh Kumar and Others vs Smt. Archana Gharwar I.a.S., Registrar, K.G.M.U., Lko.

Ashok Kumar vs Sri Shaliendra Singh, Executive Enginer Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division- Fatehpur

Hawaldar Singh vs Shri Amrit Abhijat, Prin.Secy.Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4, U.P.Govt.Civil Secrtt.Lko.

Dr. Rekha Singh and 8 Others vs Mr. M.P. Agrawal and 2 Others

Syed Rehan Mustafa Rizvi vs Mr. Ram Lakhan Singh Chandural District Consumer Redressalcommission Sultanpur and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar and 3 Others vs Shri Ajay Chauhan, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of P.W.D. Lko.