Allahabad High Court
Anshul Sharma @ Ashu And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Sl. No.310 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:120862 Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13248 of 2017 Applicant :- Anshul Sharma @ Ashu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Trivedi,Rajesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Satyendra Tiwari, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding in Case No.269 of 2017 (State Vs. Ashu and another) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kannauj, arising out of Case Crime No.242/2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 511 IPC, Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj, and also quash the charge sheet dated 08.12.2016 in Case Crime No.242 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 511 IPC, Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj.
3. On 01.05.2017, this Court passed the following order :
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 269 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 242 of 2016 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 511 I.P.C., Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kannauj.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the victim had married with the applicant no.1 out of her own free will and consent that the victim along with the applicant no.1 also approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16370 of 2016, and the Division Bench of this Court had granted protection vide order dated 15.07.2016, copy of which order is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit accompanying the 482 Cr.P.C., application. Learned counsel further contends that since the opposite party no.2 was not happy with the marriage and has initiated the present proceedings which is bad in law.
Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within a period of four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Opposite party no.2 may also file counter affidavit within the same period. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicants two weeks' thereafter, is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Court.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. "
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, notice was duly served on the opposite party no.2 however, none has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon an order dated 15.07.2016 wherein this Court has noted that the victim appeared before the Court and made a statement that she was major, she had walked out from her home and married the applicant no.1 herein. In view thereof, an interim protection was granted to the applicant no.1 in the said writ petition vide order dated 15.07.2016 which reads as under :
"Heard Sri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Imran Saiyad, learned AGA for the State.
Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 to 3.
Issue notice to the opposite party no. 4.
Each of the respondent is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may also be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List after six weeks.
On the matter being taken up today, Smt. Pooja D/o Ramdeen, petitioner no. 1 is present in Court and she claims that she is major and on her own freewill, walked out from her parental house and has entered into matrimonial alliance with Ashu S/o Jagdish, petitioner no. 2.
Both the petitioners have contended that once they are major and they have voluntarily married, then to conceive in view of the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 - Sachin Pawar Vs. State of U.P., decided on 02.08.2013, that, offence has been committed under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., cannot be approved of.
The petitioners are present in the Court and have been identified by their counsel.
Prima facie arguments advanced appear to have some substance and require consideration by this court as such pursuant to impugned F.I.R. Dated 9.6.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 242 of 2016 under sections 363, 366 I.P.C., police station Thathiya, District Kannauj, no coercive action be taken against the petitioners. "
6. Subsequent to the aforesaid order, on 02.09.2016, statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has categorically stated that the applicant no.1 Anshul has forcibly taken her to Delhi where he attempted to rape her. Thereafter, she was brought to Etawah where his father and uncle have also kept her forcibly then she was kept in Mainpuri about a month. All of them were forcing her to marry the applicant no.1. Somehow, she could manage to call her mother and she stated before the Court that she wants to go with her parents. On such statement, she was released and went along with her parents. Subsequently, the investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 363, 366, 376 and 511 IPC. Thereafter, another Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.21699 of 2016 was filed by Jagdish Narain and another praying for quashing of FIR. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.10.2016 and this Court has refused the prayer for quashing of the FIR against the applicant therein. Subsequent thereto, another Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.24067 of 2016 was filed by the applicant no.1 herein, which was also disposed of granting interim protection to the applicant no.1 herein vide order dated 24.11.2016. Subsequent thereto, the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16370 of 2016 wad dismissed in default vide order dated 06.03.2017. Thereafter, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants herein seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of the said case.
7. Thus, from the allegations as mentioned in the FIR, the victim has been forcibly taken by the applicant no.1 and as per her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has been forcibly taken by the applicant no.1 to Delhi when he attempted to rape her. Subsequent thereto, the father of the applicant no.1 and his elder brother has also kept her in Etawah and then in Mainpuri. Therefore, from the categorical statement of the victim, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.
8. Therefore, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with the proceedings before the Trial Court, thus the instant application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2025/Priya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)