Allowed

Sudhir Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2025A482/3059/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash criminal proceedings under IPC and POCSO, the Allahabad High Court held that since the prosecutrix and the accused are legally married and enjoy a peaceful life, the proceedings were quashed to protect their dignity.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings arising out of Sessions Trial No. 1183 of 2022 and Case Crime No. 265 of 2022 are quashed.

Sudhir Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3059 of 2023

¶3

Sudhir Kumar And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) : Counsel for Applicant(s) Amar Nath Dubey : Counsel for Opposite Party(s) G.A., Vijay Kumar

¶7

Court No. - 14

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

On 11th of September, 2025, the following order was passed:

¶10

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of criminal case no. 1183 of 2022 arising out of the charge-sheet dated 17.7.2022 as well as the summoning order dated 1.8.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hardoi pertaining to case crime no. 265 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, police station Kotwali City, district Hardoi.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report was lodged against the applicant no. 1 by the father of the alleged prosecutrix leveling allegations that the prosecutrix who is less than 18 years of age, was abducted by the appellant no. 1 and rape was committed upon her.

¶13

It is argued that from the medical report dated 2.6.2024, it is evident that the alleged prosecutrix was about 20 years of age. Learned counsel submits that the prosecutrix i.e. applicant no. 2 performed marriage with the applicant no. 1 and they are living as husband and wife and they have one child out of their wedlock. He added that if the criminal proceeding is allowed to continue against the applicant no. 1, the marital life of the alleged prosecutrix i.e. applicant no. 2 as well as the applicant no. 1 shall be ruined, therefore, the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant may be quashed.

¶14

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the contentions made by learned

¶15

A482 No. 3059 of 2023

¶16

¶17

counsel for the applicants but he could not dispute the fact that the applicant no. 1 and the applicant no. 2 i.e. prosecutrix i.e. have married out of their free will and they are living as husband and wife.

¶18

For the aforesaid reasons, the applicant no. 1 and the applicant no. 2 i.e. prosecutrix are directed to remain present before this Court on 18.9.2025.

¶19

List/put up on 18.9.2025 at 2.15 P.M.

¶20

This order shall be communicated by the counsel for the respective parties.

¶21

Interim order, if any, to continue till the next date of listing."

¶22

In compliance of the order aforesaid, the applicant no. 1, namely, Sudhir Kumar and applicant no. 2, the alleged prosecutrix, namely, Neelam Devi alongwith two years' child out of their wedlock, are present before this Court. They are identified by their counsel.

¶23

On a query being asked, Neelam Devi, the victim, has sated that she was major at the time of incident and her father, being annoyed with applicant no. 1, has lodged the First Information Report, as he was not agreed with the marriage of applicant no. 1 with her. She submits that she has performed the marriage with applicant no. 1 and she is living with him as wife and there is also two years' child out of their wedlock.

¶24

Sudhir Kumar, applicant no. 1, has also reiterated the aforesaid version of the victim.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no fruitful purpose would be sub-served, while allowing the criminal proceedings against applicant no. 1, thus, submission is that the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

¶26

In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgement rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021 and submits that the case of the present applicants is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment aforesaid.

¶27

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid but he has no objection, if the parties have

¶28

A482 No. 3059 of 2023

¶29

¶30

performed the marriage and have settled their life by way of performing the marriage.

¶31

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, particularly the statements of the alleged victim that she has performed the marriage with applicant no. 1 and there is also two years' child from their wedlock, the instant application is hereby allowed and the criminal proceedings arising out of Sessions Trial No. 1183 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 265 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi, are hereby quashed.

¶32

Consequences to be followed.

¶33

Personal appearance of both the applicants is hereby exempted.

¶34

September 18, 2025

¶35

kkv/

¶36

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶37

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

Sudhir Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Prasad and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Fakeer Mohammad and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Farooque Ahmad and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Virendra Pratap and Ors. Vs State of Up

Sheenu Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Smt. Pooja and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. and Anr.