HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2933 of 2020 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Present petition has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the charge sheet no.448/19, under sections 363, 506, 366, 376 IPC and 3 / 4 POCSO Act, police station – Inayat Nagar, District - Faizabad as well as summoning order dated 23.12.2019 passed by learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 9th Faizabad under sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act initiated through case crime no.135/2019 as well as the non-bailable warrant dated 11.11.2020 passed by the Court of POCSO 3rd Faizabad in S.T. No.166/19 and also the entire proceedings of criminal case arising out of FIR no.135/2019 dated 28.3.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were in love and they were willing to enter into the marriage but the same was not accepted by their family members, as a result petitioner no.1 left her house and joined the company of petitioner no.2 on her own. Thereafter on the basis of concocted facts, FIR of the case in question was lodged. During the course of investigation, statement of victim was recorded under Sections 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC, in which, she stated that she went with the petitioner no.2 and thereafter she reached Lucknow where they took a rented accommodation and stayed there. Thereafter she somemnized 'nikhah' with petitioner no.2. Thereafter, she was allowed to stay with her parents. In the meantime, charge sheet was submitted and later on she again joined the company of applicant no.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that victim was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiv Prakash Awasthi, Ashok Kumar Singh, Shadab Waheed Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Piyush Kumar Singh Jyoti Yadav @ Shahnaj And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) aged about 18 years at the time of alleged incident (as per radiological examination). Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that now victim and accused (petitioners) and they are enjoying their matrimonial life and out of their wedlock, two children were born who are aged about 3 years and 4 months respectively and the victim has not supported the prosecution version before the trial court. It is also submitted that since trial of the case in question would be futile one. It is thus submitted that kind indulgence of this Court is necessary. 5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that at the time of incident, victim was minor as per school leaving certificate, however, he does not dispute this fact that in the radiological examination, her age was found 18 years. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute that the victim has not supported prosecution version in her statement recorded under section 161 CrPC and 164CrPC. 6. The victim, who is present before this Court, stated that victim/ petitioner no.1 and accused/ petitioner no.2 were in love and they have also solemnized 'nikah' on 08.4.2018. Thereafter, for some time she stayed with her parents, but again she joined the company of petitioner no.2 and presently they are enjoying their matrimonial life and having two children. She also stated that she does not want to prosecute the petitioner no.2. He also informed that the FIR of the case in question was lodged by her mother due to annoyance and she is still opposing the wishes of victim. Petitioner requested that impugned proceedings as well as trial of the case in question may be set aside. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the FIR as well as other relevant materials, it is evident that the FIR of the case in question was lodged by the mother of the victim/ petitioner no.1 and thereafter victim was recovered and her statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded, in which, she categorically denied the prosecution story. In her statement under Section 164 CrPC, she also stated that when she went to Lucknow along with petitioner no.2 other persons were also sitting in the vehicle, but she never asked for help. 8. Further, in the radiological examination her age was found to be 18 years. It is further evident that she also admitted 'nikah' with petitioner no.6 and is also having two children. Moreover, she has already been examined before the trial court and she has not supported the prosecution version. 9. In view of the above as also the fact that the petitioners are enjoying their matrimonial life and, are having two children, this Court is of the view that the A482 No. 2933 of 2020 2 trial of the case in question is futile one, accordingly, petition is allowed. 10. Entire proceedings of criminal case arising out of case crime no.135/2019, under sections – 363, 506, 366, 376 IPC & 3 / 4 POCSO Act, police station – Inayat Nagar, District Faizabad including summoning order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 9th Faizabad and also non bailable warrant dated 11.11.2020 passed by the learned Court of POCSO ACT III, Faizabad and the charge sheet bearing no.448/2019 in case crime no.135/2019 under sections 363, 366, 506, 376 IPC and 3 / 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station – Inayat Nagar, District Faizabad are hereby quashed. 11. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned court below forthwith. November 17, 2025 mks A482 No. 2933 of 2020 3 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench