Allowed

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

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2025A482/7154/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This instant judgment quashed the chargesheet in a criminal case involving allegations of rape under IPC and POCSO. The applicant, a married man with two children, challenged the proceedings based on the statutory exception for marital intercourse and the non-appearance of the State respondents, invoking the ruling in Kuldeep Singh vs. The State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Criminal Case No. 900/2024, cognizance order dated 12.06.2024, and Chargesheet No. 1 of 2024.

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7154 of 2025

Ajay Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anuj Singh, Somdutta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

¶9

The applicant has assailed the chargesheet dated 02.06.2024 submitted against him in Case Crime No. 173 of 2024 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5j(II), 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ramsanehighat, District Barabanki.

¶10

Shri Anuj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the victim were intimate. The couple got married on 28.02.2023. On the date of her marriage the victim was a major. The medical report drawn up under Section 27 of the POCSO Act read with Section 164-A Cr.P.C. by the competent medical authority has determined the age of the victim as 19 years. The victim had solemnized her marriage with the applicant of her free will. Two children were born in the wedlock. The victim and the applicant have submitted an affidavit before this Court to this effect.

¶11

Shri Ishan Tiwari, learned counsel for the victim is also present in Court who admits the above said facts. The couple along with the two children are present in Court. They have been identified by counsels for respective parties.

¶12

Shri Anuj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ishan Tiwari, learned counsel for the victim submit that even if

¶13

A482 No. 7154 of 2025

¶14

¶15

the prosecution is taken on its face value no case under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC read with Section 5j(II), 6 POCSO Act is disclosed.

¶16

The following proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. passed in SLP(Cri) No. 13277 of 2023 , squarely applies to the facts of this case:

¶17

"14. Importantly, it must be noted that the case as of now, after the filing of chargesheet, survives only to the extent of allegations under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC as it was established during the inquiry that the victim had solemnised the marriage with the appellant out of her own free will.

¶18

In this regard, it has been rightly pointed out by the appellant that as per Exception 2 under Section 375 of IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife cannot be termed as rape and, hence, a charge under Section 376 of IPC cannot be sustained against the appellant. Further, the conduct of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in failing to enter appearance despite sufficient notice is reflective of the fact that it is a dead case where no purpose shall be served in continuing the criminal proceedings alleging charges of rape against the appellant."

¶19

The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 900/2024 (State of U.P. vs. Ajay Kumar) in Case Crime No. 173 of 2024 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5j(II), 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ramsanehighat, District Barabanki and the cognizance order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, in Case Crime No. 173 of 2024 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5j(II), 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ramsanehighat, District Barabanki and the Chargesheet No. 1 of 2024 filed in Criminal Case No. 900/2024 (State of U.P. vs. Ajay Kumar) in Case Crime No. 173 of 2024 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5j(II), 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ramsanehighat, District Barabanki are liable to be quashed and are quashed.

¶20

A482 No. 7154 of 2025

¶21

¶22

The application under Section 482 is allowed.

August 29, 2025

Vandit

(Ajay Bhanot,J.)

Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subrati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl .Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Prakash Nut and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jibrail Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Complainant X in Case Crime No. 133/2025 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vikram Kumar Manwani and 2 Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Naimish Kumar Singh @ Naimish Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another