Dismissed¶20

Sattu Yadav Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2025A482/1953/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. application dismissed as infructuous after applicant's conviction during trial; quashing of POCSO/SC-ST proceedings on basis of compromise dated 30.07.2024 not adjudicated; Allahabad High Court, Court No. 70; Rajeev Misra, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:71323; Application U/S 482 No. 1953 of 2025; Case No. 106 of 2019; case crime No. 0161 of 2019; Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC; 3/4 POCSO Act; Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act; P.S. Kadaura, District Jalaun; interim order vacated; notice to first informant served 11.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as having rendered infructuous, following the counsel's submission that the trial of the applicant had already been concluded and the applicant had been convicted by the court below. ¶20

Sattu Yadav Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire further proceedings in Case No.106 of 2019 (State v. Sattu Yadav) arising out of case crime No.0161 of 2019 (Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kadaura, District Jalaun) pending before the Additional District Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Jalaun could be quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties dated 30.07.2024. +1 more

¶9

Ratio / Principle

¶20

Key takeaways

The Court allowed the amendment of the cause title of the application to implead the High Court Legal Services Committee and the District Legal Services Committee, Jalaun as opposite parties 3 & 4, finding the prayer bona fide and unopposed by the learned AGA.¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 70), Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:71323; Order dated 5.5.2025; single judge: Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1953 of 2025 by Sattu Yadav alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, a charge-sheeted accused facing trial, praying for quashing of the entire further proceedings in Case No. 106 of 2019 (State v. Sattu Yadav) arising out of case crime No. 0161 of 2019 under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 POCSO Act read with Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kadaura, District Jalaun, pending before the Additional District Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Jalaun, on the basis of a compromise between the parties dated 30.07.2024. Cause title amended to implead the High Court Legal Services Committee and the District Legal Services Committee, Jalaun as opposite parties 3 & 4. Despite notice served on the first informant/opposite party-2 on 11.01.2025, no counter affidavit was filed and no appearance made in opposition. Learned counsel thereafter submitted (per telephonic message) that the trial had already concluded and the applicant had been convicted by the court below; the unopposed prayer to dismiss the application as infructuous was allowed. Application dismissed as having rendered infructuous; interim order, if any, stands vacated. The question of quashing proceedings on the basis of the compromise was not adjudicated on its merits.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71323

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1953 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sattu Yadav Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Dharmendra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned AGA for State/opposite party-1.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Applicant- Sattu Yadav Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, who is a charge-sheeted accused and facing trial before court below has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶9

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court graciously may be pleased to allow the present application and quashing the entire further proceedings in Case No.106 of 2019 (State Vs. Sattu Yadav) arising out of case crime No.0161 of 2019 under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 POCSO Act, read with under Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun pending before Additional District Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act Jalaun at the place of Urai on the basis of compromise between the both parties dated 30.07.2024, and/or passed such other and further order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts & circumstances of the case."

¶10

On the matter being taken up, the learned AGA submits that notice of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been served upon first informant/opposite party-2 on 11.01.2025. However, in spite of service of notice, neither any counter affidavit has been filed by the first informant/opposite party-2 in opposition to this application nor anyone has put in appearance on his behalf to oppose this application even in revised call.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that due to inadvertence, the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court and the District Legal Services Committee, Jalaun could not be impleaded as party respondents in present application even though they are necessary and proper parties as present application arises out of

¶12

proceedings under the POCSO Act. He, therefore, seeks permission of Court to amend the cause title of this application by impleading aforementioned authorities as party respondents/opposite parties 3 & 4.

¶13

Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona fide. Same is not opposed by the learned AGA representing Stateopposite party-1.

¶14

Accordingly, it is allowed.

¶15

Let necessary amendment in the cause title of this application be carried out by the learned counsel for applicant during course of the day.

¶16

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submits that as per telephonic message received by him, the trial of applicant has already been concluded and applicant has been convicted by court below. On the above premise, he submits that no cause of action now survives with the applicant to maintain the present application.

¶17