HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8071 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma and Ravindra Nath Singh, Advocates on behalf of respondent no. 3 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3. 3. This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 29.01.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 21.02.2022 passed in S.T. No. 108 of 2022 arising out of F.I.R. No. 327 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Malhipur, District Shrawasti and its entire proceedings. 4. In pursuance of earlier order dated 09.10.2025, applicant is present before this Court along with her child aged about 1 year. Respondent no. 3 is also present before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim was major at the time of incident and she was willing to enter into the marriage with respondent no. 3, but her family members were against her wishes, as a result, she left her house on her own to join the company of respondent no. 3. However, on the basis of concocted facts, the F.I.R. was lodged by her mother-respondent no. 2. Thereafter, the victim came back and appeared before the Investigating Officer. It is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Vishal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rama Kant Dixit, Vineet Tiwari Samiya .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) further submitted that the statement of the victim was also recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she categorically denied the prosecution story. It is vehemently submitted that in her radio-logical examination, she was found to be aged about 19 years, but without considering the aforesaid statements of the victim as well as her radiological examination report, the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer, on which, the trial was proceeded. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation, respondent no. 3 was taken into custody and was sent to jail, however, later on, he was enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the victim again joined the company of the applicant and started enjoying their matrimonial life. Out of their wedlock, one child was also born, who is aged about 1 year. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as applicant and respondent no. 3 are enjoying their matrimonial life with their child, the trial of the case in question would be futile one. It is, thus, submitted that the entire proceedings related to the crime in question pending before the Special Judge in S.T. No. 108 of 2022 may be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant, while supporting the statement of the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant is her daughter and as she is enjoying her matrimonial life with respondent no. 3, she has no objection, in case, the proceedings before the court below are quashed. 7. However, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. However, he does not dispute the statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as determination of her age by way of radio-logical examination, in which, she was found to be 19 years at the time of incident. 8. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other relevant documents, including the radio-logical examination A482 No. 8071 of 2025 2 report of the victim, it is evident that the victim is the applicant of the present case and she never supported the prosecution version during the course of investigation. It is further evident that as per the radio- logical examination report, she was aged about 19 years, but charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer considering her as minor. It is also evident that presently, applicant and respondent no. 3 are enjoying their matrimonial life and now they are having one son aged about 1 year. In such circumstances, the trial of the case in question would be futile one. 9. In view of above facts and discussions, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. Charge sheet dated 29.01.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 21.02.2022 passed in S.T. No. 108 of 2022 arising out of F.I.R. No. 327 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Malhipur, District Shrawasti and its entire proceedings are hereby set aside. 10. The application stands allowed. 11. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith. November 24, 2025 VKS A482 No. 8071 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench