Mayaram vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Heard Shri Shubham Yadav holding brief of Shri Pravin Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶12

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 21.07.2021 as well as cognizance order dated 17.09.2021 passed in Case No. 1410 of 2021, (State Vs. Mayaram), arising out of F.I.R. No. 151 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Dewa, District Barabanki.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the prosecutrix were in love relation and were willing to solemnize marriage, but the complainant-father of the prosecutrix was against the wishes of his daughter and was adamant to solemnize her marriage with someone else. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix left her house on her own and joined the company of the applicant. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the victim on the basis of concocted facts. It is also submitted that the statements of the victim were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she categorically denied the prosecution

¶14

A482 No. 1383 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

story and stated that she entered into marriage with the applicant in a temple and they are enjoying their matrimonial life. She also stated that she expressed her desire to live with the applicant.

¶17

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that ignoring all these facts, the charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer in mechanical manner merely on the basis of presumption. It is vehemently submitted that the applicant and victim was enjoying their matrimonial life and out of their wedlock, one child was also born on 20.06.2023. It is also informed that in the meantime, the complainant also died. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishwas Bhandari Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 2021 SC 828 , learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and victim are enjoying their matrimonial life and till today, not even a single witness has been examined and there is least possibility of conclusion of trial. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the victim also concedes with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that father of the victim is no more. It is also submitted that since the applicant and victim are enjoying their matrimonial life with one child, the proceedings of the trial would be futile one. It is lastly submitted that the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

¶19

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that charge sheet has already been filed. However, on the basis of the documents annexed with the application, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant and the victim are enjoying their matrimonial life and are having one son out of their wedlock.

¶20

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel appearing for the victim and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statements recorded

¶21

A482 No. 1383 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and stated that she entered into marriage with the applicant. Annexure 7 (compromise dated 27.01.2026) of the application also reveals that one child was also born on 20.06.2023. It is also evident that the father of the victim died on 15.05.2023.

¶24

In view of above, this Court is of the considered view that the trial of the case in question would be futile one. The application, accordingly, stands allowed. The impugned proceedings are hereby set aside.

¶25

Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned, forthwith.

¶26

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶27

February 20, 2026

¶28

VKS

¶29

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

Mayaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 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

Similar cases

Pritam Singh @ Monty Sardar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Lko.

Dr. Sushil Kumar Tiwari vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Mini. of Edu. Deptt. of Higher Edu. New Delhi and 3 Others

Kamlesh Mani Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Infrastructure and Industrial Development Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Pal Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 2 Others

Amit Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Survesh Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another