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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9473

Court No. - 12

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 336 of 2025

Applicant :- Surjeet Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shushil Kr. Sharma,Vaibhav Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Priyanka Tiwari,Roshan Babu Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The applicant and the opposite party no. 3 are present before this Court, who have been identified by Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate and Shri Roshan Babu Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the said parties.

¶8

Annexure No. CA-1 of Counter Affidavit filed by the State indicates that the service of notice upon opposite party no. 2 is sufficient. However, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 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., Roshan Babu Gupta, learned counsel for the private opposite party no. 3.

¶9

Heard

¶10

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

¶11

"to quash the charge sheet dated 05.03.2021 of the offenses of Criminal Sessions Trial no.1096/2023 under section363, 366 of IPC, registered as FIR no. 679/2020; State of U.P. vs. Surjeet Singh registered at police station Para, District Lucknow pending in Court of Learned Additional

¶12

Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court IInd, Lucknow and also to quash the entire proceeding in above mentioned Sessions Trial by means of which Learned Court below has taken the cognizance of Charge Sheet dated 05.03.2021 (filed as Annexure no. 01) and summoned the accused vide order dated 18-05-2021 (filed as Annexure no.02.), as the parties had entered into the compromise and had settled their dispute."

¶13

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.

¶14

It is further stated that the relationship of victim/opposite party No. 2 and applicant was not acknowledged/accepted by the opposite party no.2/brother of victim/opposite party No. 3 and therefore a written complained on 13.12.2020 was made and based upon the same an FIR No. 679 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 of IPC was lodged against the applicant. According to this FIR, the victim/opposite party no. 2, a minor aged about seventeen years, was enticed away by the applicant.

¶15

It is further stated that in fact, the opposite party No. 3, on her own volition, left the house of her parents and accompanied the applicant to Delhi where the applicant and the opposite party No. 3 solemnized marriage and started living as husband and wife. On being coming to know about lodging of FIR, the applicant and the victim/opposite party No. 3 returned to the native place and thereafter, the statement(s) of the victim/opposite party No. 3 under Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded which are annexed as Annexure No. 5 and 6 to the present application. A bare perusal of the same would indicate that all these facts as also that the victim/opposite party No. 3, at relevant point of time, was aged about nineteen years and this age was indicated by the victim/opposite party No. 3 before the concerned Magistrate.

¶16

It is also stated that medico-legal examination was denied by the opposite party No. 3 which is apparent from the contents of the copy of medico-legal report annexed as Annexure No. 7.

¶17

It is also stated that in the document available with the prosecution, date of birth of victim/opposite party No. 3 indicated is 07.10.2003, and therefore, the victim/opposite party No. 3, at relevant point of time, was aged about seventeen years.

¶18

Further submission is that the age of the victim/opposite party no.3 available with the prosecution in fact is not correct and to establish that the same is correct the prosecution is not having any material/evidence. It is in view of the age indicated by the victim before the concerned Magistrate as also the date of birth mentioned in the document available with the prosecution.

¶19

Further stated that in view of aforesaid including there is no material/evidence with the prosecution to establish that the fact that date of birth indicated in the marksheet/document available with the prosecution was correctly entered and also that the applicant and the opposite party No. 3 are living as husband and wife with a minor born on 22.08.2023 which is apparent from the birth certificate annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the application, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) 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 victim/opposite party no.3/victim as also their child.

¶20

It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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, 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

¶24

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. 679 /2020, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 13.2.2025

¶27

Mohit Singh/-

¶28

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

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

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

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