HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8260 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. In pursuance of the earlier order, the applicant as well as the victim (opposite party No. 2) are present, which have been identified by their respective counsel. 3. As per office report dated, 17.10.2025, notice is served on the complainant of the present case, but neither he nor any one else is present on his behalf. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as the victim categorically stated that they have already entered into marriage and they are enjoying their matrimonial life. The victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer as well as before the Magistrate under section 164 CrPC, but the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in a most mechanical manner, only on the ground that, at the time of the incident, the victim was aged about 17 years, 6 months, and 4 days. They also submitted that out of their wedlock, they are having one male child of nine months, and the statement of the victim has also been recorded before the learned trial court as PW1, wherein also she has also not supported the prosecution version, hence, the trial of the case in question is a futile one, therefore, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Sewak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Diksha, Sandeep Kumar Chaurasiya Manish Kumar Chauhan @ Manish Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the kind indulgence of this court is necessary for quashing of the proceedings. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the prayer of the applicant, but he does not dispute the fact that the victim has not supported the prosecution version, either during the course of investigation or before the learned Magistrate, in which she was examined as PW1. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the application, as well as the relevant documents, as the victim has not supported the prosecution version and the victim as well as the applicant are enjoying their matrimonial life, and they are having one son of nine months, as the notice is already served on the complainant, but he has not turned up, either through counsel or in person, in the interest of justice, this court is of the view that the trial of the case in question is a futile one. Accordingly, the trial of Special Session Trial Number 101 of 2024, State versus Manish Kumar Chauhan, arising out of FIR No. 0086 of 2024 under sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Ayodhya, alongwith charge sheet No. 01 dated 31.08.2024 under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 5J(ii) and 6 POCSO Act, pending before the court of the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Second, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, contained as Annexure No. 2, is hereby quashed. The application is accordingly allowed. 7. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned trial court, concerned. October 17, 2025 A.Nigam A482 No. 8260 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench