Allahabad High Court
Kallu Alias Raj Kumar And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 April, 2023
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16247 of 2006 Applicant :- Kallu Alias Raj Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.K.Kaushik,Sangam Singh,Tarun Jha,Vijay Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as perused the material available on record.
Smt. Deepa (daughter of opposite party no.2) has stated in supplementary affidavit that she is Hindu by religion and went with the applicant no.1 on her own free will and solemnized marriage with the applicant no.1 on 18.2.2006 and at the time of marriage she was major; she is living with her husband and from their wedlock, two children have been born, namely, Kashis Sharma and Ayush Kumar, now aged about 16 years and 6 months and 12 years and 6 months, copy of the Aadhar Cards is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the supplementary affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the victim in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C has not implicated the applicants for an offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C.; she was major and at the time of marriage her age was 18 years, hence, the proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed. It is under these circumstances it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings against the applicants.
In the present case, the sections involved are Sections 363, 366 I.P.C..
Since both the parties have solemnized their marriage; victim was 18 years at the time of marriage; as per the medical report victim was 18 years of age at the time of marriage and parties are living as husband and wife and from their wedlock, two child has been born, therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter pending.
Therefore, in view of the above and considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, the entire proceedings of Case No. 2515 of 2006 (State Vs. Kallu @ Raj Kumar and another), under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Sirsa Kalar, District Jalon at Urai are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.
Order Date :- 18.4.2023 Krishna*