2026:UHC:142 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appli. (C-482) No. 1263 of 2016 Anup Kumar -------Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another -----------Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Manju Chauhan, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Prabha Nathani, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J. The present Criminal Misc. Application under Section C-482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 09.01.2013 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2803 of 2014 (Case Crime No. 289 of 2010), u/Sections 363, 366 IPC, pending before the A.C.J.M., Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the daughter of respondent no.2 were in love and they married on 07.04.2010 at Arya Samaj. He refers to annexure no. 3 which is a certificate of marriage dated 07.04.2010. He further submits that as 1 2026:UHC:142 the respondent no.2 and other family members were not happy with the marriage as such the applicant and his wife and were apprehending threat to their life and, as such, applicant went with his wife to Punjab, where the applicant was doing labour work. He further contends that at the time of marriage, the wife of the applicant (daughter of respondent no.2) was 22 years of age, as such, was major and out of the wedlock, they have a child also. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant’s wife has also filed an affidavit in support of the applicant and the said affidavit is annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the this C-482 Application. He thus submits that the criminal case against the applicant by the respondent no.2 is an abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the daughter of the respondent no. 2 was minor at the time of incident, however, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.2 to substantiate the said claim. 5. Learned counsel for the State has filed an objection. Para 7 of the said objection reads as under: “That it is further to state here that the summoning 2 2026:UHC:142 order dated 09.01.2013 was passed and as per the pleading in para 6 both the persons have been married and a son is being born from the wedlock and as per the charge-sheet no section of POCSO has been added which clarifies that during the investigation the I.O. has found the abducted girl was major and as such no charge-sheet was field under POCSO.” 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant and the daughter of respondent no.2 had married and during the investigation, the Investigating Officer has found the abducted girl (daughter of the respondent no.2) was major, thus no charge-sheet was filed under the POCSO Act. Further, the affidavit of the daughter of respondent no.2, who is wife of the applicant, is enclosed as Annexure No. 6 to the application, wherein the daughter of the respondent no.2 has stated that she was major on the date of incident, i.e., 08.12.2010 and was never abducted and had performed marriage on her own free will and his having a son and both of them are living happily married life. 7. In view of the above observations, the Court is of the view that it will be a futile exercise to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 09.01.2013 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2803 of 2014 3 2026:UHC:142 (Case Crime No. 289 of 2010) u/Sections 363, 366 IPC, pending before the A.C.J.M., Roorkee, District Haridwar, are quashed. The C-482 Application is allowed. (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 03.01.2026 Kaushal 4