# Pradeep Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1147
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-13
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 1327 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rahul Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-51307
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal
Proceedings
in
Cases
of
Consensual
Interfaith Marriages - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
363
-
Kidnapping,
Section
366
-
Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman
to compel her marriage - "Sui juris" -
mentally
competent,
and
capable
of
making their own decisions, including
choosing their life partners - where an
individual is over 18 years of age, no
fetters could be placed on her choice on
where to reside or about the person with
whom she could stay.(Para - 13)

Multiple couples eloped and got married
consensually, facing opposition from parents -
FIRs filed under Sections 363 and 366 IPC
alleging kidnapping and abduction to compel
marriage - Charge sheets and summoning
orders issued against couple - Couples filed
petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking
quashing of proceedings - Court considered
judicial precedents on individual autonomy and
privacy. (Para - 11 to 16 )

HELD: - Prosecution under Sections 363 and
366 IPC is misconceived as marriages were
consensual. Couples, being majors, have the
right to choose their life partners. Quashing the
proceedings would serve the ends of justice and
prevent harassment to the couples. Court must
consider
the
humanitarian
and
societal
implications while applying the law. Quashed
the charge sheets, summoning orders, and
entire
criminal
proceedings
against
the
applicants. (Para - 12 to 18)

Petitions allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Pradeep Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1147
prosecution nor objection of the defence
but
has
applied
its
judicious
mind
considering
the
testimony
of
the
prosecutrix indicating her statement in the
impugned
order
dated
11.01.2024,
therefore, the benefit of the judgment of
Apex Court rendered in the case in re: P.
Kartikalakshmi
(supra)
may
not
be
provided to the petitioner in the present
case.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record and having regard to
the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the
case in re: P. Kartikalakshmi (supra), I find
that while passing the impugned order
dated 11.01.2024, the learned trial court has
rightly considered the testimony of the
prosecutrix whereby she has stated on oath
before the court during the course of trial
that the petitioner has committed offence of
rape when she was below eighteen years.

8. In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs.
State of Gujarat and others reported in
(2004) 5 SCC 347, the Apex Court while
dealing with scope of Section 216 Cr.P.C,
in para-10 has held as under:-

"10. Therefore, if during trial the
trial court on a consideration of broad
probabilities of the case based upon total
effect of the evidence and documents
produced is satisfied that any addition or
alteration of the charge is necessary, it is
free to do so, and there can be no legal bar
to appropriately act as the exigencies of the
case warrant or necessitate."

9. Therefore, in view of what has
been considered above, I am not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order dated
11.01.2024 passed by the learned trial court
but it is needless to say that the petitioner
after surrendering/ appearing before the
court concerned may take all pleas and
grounds which are available to him to
establish himself as innocent in those
sections. He may also apprise the court
concerned that in the F.I.R. and the chargesheet, which has been filed by the
Investigating Officer, the petitioner has
already been granted bail, therefore, in
added sections his bail application may be
considered leniently.

10. In view of the above, the instant
petition is disposed of finally at the
admission stage.

Before parting with, I appreciate the
efforts and research work done by Mr.
Piyush
Tripathi,
Research
Associate,
attached with me and Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi,
Law Intern in finding out the relevant case
laws applicable in the present case.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1147
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 1327 of 2022
AND
Application u/s 482 No. 1677 OF 2015
connected with
Application u/s 482 No. 3413 of 2014
and
Application u/s 482 No. 6425 of 2023

Pradeep Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ashok Kumar Yadav, Aditya Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal
Proceedings
in
Cases
of
Consensual
Interfaith Marriages - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
363
-
Kidnapping,
Section
366
-
Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman
to compel her marriage - "Sui juris" -
mentally
competent,
and
capable
of
making their own decisions, including
choosing their life partners - where an
individual is over 18 years of age, no
fetters could be placed on her choice on
where to reside or about the person with
whom she could stay.(Para - 13)

Multiple couples eloped and got married
consensually, facing opposition from parents -
FIRs filed under Sections 363 and 366 IPC
alleging kidnapping and abduction to compel
marriage - Charge sheets and summoning
orders issued against couple - Couples filed
petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking
quashing of proceedings - Court considered
judicial precedents on individual autonomy and
privacy. (Para - 11 to 16 )

HELD: - Prosecution under Sections 363 and
366 IPC is misconceived as marriages were
consensual. Couples, being majors, have the
right to choose their life partners. Quashing the
proceedings would serve the ends of justice and
prevent harassment to the couples. Court must
consider
the
humanitarian
and
societal
implications while applying the law. Quashed
the charge sheets, summoning orders, and
entire
criminal
proceedings
against
the
applicants. (Para - 12 to 18)

Petitions allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vinod Kumar, IAS Vs U.O.I., 2021 SCC Online
SC 559

2. Superintendent and Rememberancer of Legal
Affairs, W.B. Vs Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706

3. Anil Khadkiwala Vs St. (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
& anr., (2019) 17 SCC 294,
4. Mafat Lal & Anr. Vs St. of Raj. in Crl. Appeal
No.592 of 2022

5. Shafin Jahan Vs Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC
368

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,
J.)

[1].

The
aforementioned
four
Applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of
different applicants have been filed with the
prayer that the criminal proceedings against
them may be quashed in exercise of
extraordinary power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. In all
aforementioned cases there is a common
legal question involved, and thus, for the
sake of brevity, all these petitions are being
decided by a common judgment and order.

[2]. In Application u/s 482 No.1327
of 2024 Shri Karm Veer Yadav, learned
counsel for opposite party no.7 has filed his
Vakalatnama in the Court, is taken on
record.

[3]. Heard learned counsels named
above appeared for respective appellants,
learned counsel for opposite party as well
as
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate for the State of U.P. at length and
to their satisfaction. Perused the record.

[4]. In Application u/s 482 No.1677
of 2015, despite of the time given to
learned A.G.A. as well as notices were
served upon opposite party no.2, no one has
put his appearance on behalf of opposite
party no.2 nor any counter affidavit has
been filed. The mater relates to Year 2015,
whereby two young persons after attaining
their majority decided to marry, and they
got married. Applicant- Ram Gopal is the
husband, who is knocking the doors of this
Court for quashing the entire criminal
prosecution against him.
2 All. Pradeep Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1149

[5]. In Application u/s 482 No.6425
of
2023
the
contesting
parties
are
represented by their respective counsels,
but despite of the notice issued to opposite
party nos.2 and 3, no one has filed any
counter affidavit.

[6]. Before analysing the legal aspect
of the issue, it is imperative to give a bird's
eye view to the facts of each case one by
one.

FACTUAL MATRIX :

[7]. APPLICATION U/S 482 No. -
1327 of 2024

(Pradeep Yadav vs. State of U.P. & 6
others)

(i). The prayer sought in the
present petition is to quash the impugned
Charge Sheet No.2A/16 dated 18.5.2016,
summoning order dated 24.01.2017 as well
as entire criminal proceeding in Session
Trial No.2/17 (State vs. Pradeep Kumar),
arising out of Case Crime No.138/2013, u/s
363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3⁄4 POCSO Act,
P.S.-Kotwali Kunda, District Pratapgrah,
pending in the court of Additional Session
Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh.

(ii). Affidavit of this petition is
sweared
by
Pradeep
Yadav-applicant
himself.

Long and short of the case is that way
back on 20.7.2023 the informant- Ravi
Shankar Mishra has lodged an F.I.R.
against Pradeep Yadav, Shyam Sunder
Yadav and Ravi Gupta, all are resident of
Kunda, Pratapgarh, with the allegation that
the informant's daughter Ms. 'K' was
pursuing her studies in Kripalu Balika
Mahavidyalay, Kunda, a student of B.Sc.-
Ist Year. The informant dropped his
daughter to the college on 19.7.2013
around 8.00 in the morning and thereafter
her daughter did not come back to home.
After making inquiry, it is surfaced that
Pradeep Yadav- applicant, his father Shyam
Sundar Yadav and one Ravi Gupta have
enticed her away. It is alleged in the F.I.R.
that the date of the birth of the girl is
24.10.1997, allegedly a minor girl on the
date of incident, and therefore, it was
requested to lodge an F.I.R. against above
persons.

(iii).
After
holding
due
investigation, the name of Ravi Gupta was
exonerated by the police and the name of
two more persons were inserted as accused,
namely, Bachcha Yadav @ Jagdish and
Pawan Kumar Yadav. A charge sheet was
submitted by the police on 02.01.2014
against the aforesaid persons u/s 363, 366
I.P.C.

(iv). In paragraph 10 of the
petition, in no uncertain terms it is stated
that the applicant Pradeep Yadav and the
prosecutrix Ms. 'K' have solemnized
marriage on 19.8.2014 at Arya Samaj
Temple Aliganj, Lucknow and later on at
Belha
Devi
Temple,
Pratapgarh
on
11.4.2016. Not only this, they have got
their marriage registered on 26.5.2023, a
copy of Marriage Certificate is annexed as
Annexure-5 to the petition.

(v). Submission advanced by the
counsel for applicant is that on earlier
occasion the Division Bench of this Court
had protected the interest of petitioner and
the prosecutrix vide order dated 26.9.2014
while disposing of Writ Petition No.9971
(M/B) of 2014 (Smt. Kriti and another vs.
State of U.P. and others), directing the
couple for their medical examination and
recording the statements u/s 161 & 164
Cr.P.C. It was also directed by the Division
Bench that till this exercise is over, the
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interest of the petitioners was protected and
they
shall
not
be
arrested
during
investigation.

(vi)
Meanwhile,
there
were
certain issues cropped up for which the
couple have again approached this Court
for redressal of their grievances and the
coordinate Bench of this Court has
accommodated them and the statements of
the girl u/s 161 & 164 were recorded. But
despite of the favourable statement u/s 161
and 164 Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer,
after adopting regular practice, submitted a
report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C./charge-sheet on
18.5.2016
bearing
Charge-sheet
No.2A/2016 and the learned Magistrate too
without applying his judicial mind have
taken the cognizance of those offences and
passed a summoning order on 24.1.2017.
The applicants have again rushed to this
Court by filing Crl. Misc. Application u/s
482 No.2072 of 2017 for quashing of the
charge sheet and summoning order, but the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court without
looking into the factual aspects of the issue
have dealt the scope and ambit of Section
482 Cr.P.C. In that long order dated
3.4.2017 the scope and ambit of Section
482 Cr.P.C. was discussed without touching
any iota of factual issue and it was also
held that the police after investigation
found a prima facie case against the
accused-applicant and submitted a charge
sheet before the court below. It was further
observed that the offences are cognizable
offences and the accused applicants ought
to be tried before the court of the law.
There is no reason or occasion to quash the
charge sheet at this stage and thus that
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stood dismissed.

(vii) On the other hand, the
applicant and his wife-prosecutrix were
residing at Delhi and they were leading a
happy marital life in the company of each
other. This wedlock has given birth to two
babies, a girl child was born on 5.2.2017
and a baby boy was born on 26.11.2018.
On this ground it has been canvassed by
learned counsel for applicant that though
this petition is second petition with the
same prayer, but under the different and
changed circumstances. Now the life of
four persons are at stakes. On this score,
learned counsel for applicant has drawn
attention of the Court to the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod
Kumar, IAS vs. Union of India, 2021 SCC
Online SC 559, in which, the Apex Court
while relying upon yet another judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Superintendent and Rememberancer of
Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan
Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706, have clearly
opined that dismissal of earlier 482
application does not create bar in filing of
subsequent petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., in case
the facts so justify. A similar view was also
taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case
of Anil Khadkiwala vs. State (Govt of NCT
of Delhi) and another, (2019) 17 SCC 294,
in which it has been clearly laid down that
successive 482 applications under the
changed circumstances or being materially
different from earlier application, are
maintainable and the dismissal of earlier
quashment application shall not come into
the way and would not act as a bar.

(viii). Relying upon the above
judgments the learned counsel for applicant
has hammered his submissions that earlier
482 application No.2072 of 2017 (Pradeep
Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P.) which was
dismissed on 03.04.2017 does not contain a
single averment, touching the facts of the
present case. While dismissing the above
482 application, the Coordinate Bench of
this Court has mainly focused upon the
scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
while taking into account the number of
decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court, in
2 All. Pradeep Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1151
a most mechanical fashion come to the
conclusion that a prima facie offence is
made out against the applicant.

(ix). As mentioned above, there is
a sea-change in the circumstances. Now the
life of four persons are involved in this case
and the Court in such a scenario should not
apply only legal provisions in a mechanical
fashion, but a humane face ought to be
given. Thus, I am of the considered opinion
that
the
present
482
application
is
maintainable in the larger interest of the
parties. Though there is no quarrel with the
settled legal proposition that successive 482
applications between the same parties is not
maintainable, provided there is drastic
change in the circumstances of the case.

[8].

APPLICATION
U/S
482
No.1677 of 2015 (Ram Gopal vs. The State
of U.P. and Another connected with
APPLICATION U/S 482 No.3413 of 2014
(Bahau and another vs. State of U.P. and
another).

(i) Both these petitions are connected
petitions and in their respective parent
orders while entertaining and granting the
interim order, the Bench of this Court had
directed the applicants to file a counter
affidavit. Office report dated 12.11.2014 of
482 application No.3413 of 2014, indicates
that notices were served upon opposite
party no.2 personally, but no counter
affidavit has been filed in this matter.
Application u/s 482 No.3413 of 2014
(Bahau and another vs. State of U.P. and
another) is the leading case. This petition
should
be
decided
with
Crl.
Misc.
Application u/s 482 No.1667 of 2015 (Ram
Gopal vs. State of U.P. and another). Ram
Gopal happens to be close relative of prime
accused Bahau.

(ii) The prayer sought in both petitions
is same whereby the applicants have sought
the quashing of impugned order dated
30.7.2014 passed by the learned C.J.M.,
Bahraich, arising out of Case Crime
No.398 of 2014, u/s 363, 366A, 506
I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Nanpara,
District Bahraich, including the entire
proceeding initiated pursuant thereof.
The order dated 26.8.2014 was the
parent order directing the applicants
and opposite party no.2 to appear in the
Court and further proceeding of Case
Crime No.398 of 2014 shall remain
stayed.

(iii) Brief summary of the present case
is that the F.I.R. was lodged by Sitaram
Patel on 2.6.2014 which was registered as
Case Crime No.398 of 2014, u/s 363,
366A, 506 I.P.C. at P.S.- Nanpara, District
Bahraich against Bahau, Ram Gopal and
Pairu for the alleged incident said to have
taken place on 27.8.2013. It was alleged in
the F.I.R. that the informant's sister Ms. 'B'
(applicant
no.2
in
482
application
no.3413/2014) went to attend the call of
nature, whereby the above named accused
persons have kidnapped her on the gun
point. It is contended by the learned
counsel for applicants that the averment of
the FIR is nothing but ugly case of
exaggeration of the incident, just to
complicate the issue. In fact, Bahau and
Ms. 'B' are in dense love affair with each
other and they are major, known to each
other and eventually they have decided to
marry, but their family members were dead
against this relationship and marriage. Left
with no other option, both of them have
decided to run away from their respective
homes and performed their marriage in a
temple and now they are leading a happy
marital life. This wedlock has been blessed
with a baby boy who is now aged about 8
years. As mentioned above, the family
members were dead against this marriage,
they have decided to harass and malign the
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
couple to its optimum by filing a false
criminal case against them.

(iv) After lodging of the F.I.R., the
police have rounded up the prosecutrix and
she was put to radiological/ossification test,
in which the doctor has opined that the age
of the girl is 19+ years. Besides this, the
girl was put before the Magistrate for
recording her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., in
which in no uncertain terms she admitted
that both of them are in torrid love affair,
out of which they have decided to marry
with each other. Being major they have
every right to choose their life partners and
accordingly they have chosen to each other
as their life partners. As mentioned above,
this wedlock has blessed with a boy, hence,
now three lives are involved in the present
criminal case.

(v) The interesting feature of this case
is that when the girl was in the custody of
police, three applications were moved by
her father Banke Lal and sister-in-law for
taking
her
custody.
Learned
C.J.M.,
Bahraich
after
assessing
the
entire
circumstances and more particularly the
age of the girl and subsequent development
that she was a mother of a small kid, who is
now 8 years of age, directed the Inspector
to set her free so that she may join the
company of person of her liking and
choice.

(vi) In connected Application u/s 482
No.1677 of 2015 (Ram Gopal vs. State of
U.P. and another), Ram Gopal is the real
brother of Bahau, who has also been
chargesheeted and Ram Gopal in his
application has sought a similar prayer as
of co-accused Bahau in Crl. Misc.
Application u/s 482 No.3413 of 2014
(Bahau vs. State of U.P. and another).

(vii) Thus, as per the facts of the case,
there is no allegation of any kidnapping
attracting the provisions of Sections 363 or
366A I.P.C. In fact, it is a malicious story
tailored by the informant with ulterior
motive and harass and malign the couple,
but
as
mentioned
above,
the
most
significant
circumstance
is
that
the
accused-applicant and the prosecutrix are
happily and safely residing as husband and
wife with their small child.

[9].

APPLICATION
U/S
482
NO.6425 of 2023 (Nem Kumar @ Nem
Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. & 2 others)

(i) The extra-ordinary power of
this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is being invoked
by the applicant for quashing of the entire
proceeding of Case No.4775 of 2021 (State
vs. Nem Kumar) pending before the
learned First Additional Civil Judge (S.D.),
Sitapur, u/s 363, 366 IPC, including the
impugned summoning order dated 8.2.2021
and
the
Charge
Sheet
No.1
dated
03.10.2020 arising out of Case Crime
No.257 of 2020, u/s 363, 366 IPC, Police
Station-Rampur Mathura, District Sitapur.

(ii). Facts of the present case in
brief is that on 01.8.2020 the opposite party
no.2 has lodged an F.I.R. against the
petitioner to the effect that during the night
on 29.7.2020 around 10.00 in the night,
applicant Nem Chandra Mishra has enticed
away daughter of opposite party no.2. After
lodging of the FIR, as a natural outcome
the investigation of the case started rolling
and the police have recorded statement u/s
161 Cr.P.C. On 15.9.2020 the prosecutrix
opposite party no.3 reached to the police
station and disclosed that she married with
petitioner Nem Chand Mishra on her own
free will and choice, disclosing her age
about 18 years. Thereafter, the prosecutrix
was produced before the Magistrate for
recording her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on
31.7.2020, in which she stated that there
was no threat or coercion upon her to enter
into this nuptial tie with the applicant. Not
2 All. Pradeep Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1153
only this, she has also declined and refused
to get her medically examined. The highhandedness and atrocities of the police
started when they dumped the girl to Bal
Kalyan Samiti, Sitapur before sending her
to Nari Ashray Grih, Lucknow without
taking her consent. Left with no option,
they have approached this Court by filing a
Habeas Corpus No.17589 of 2020 and the
Court has come to rescue of petitioners and
released the detenu/prosecutrix in favour of
the husband-petitioner by order dated
8.12.2020.

(iii). This matter has got a new
angle when on 12.10.2021 the prosecutrixopposite party no.3 has given birth to a
baby boy- Shantanu. As per High School
Certificate the date of birth of the
prosecutrix is 01.01.2003 and at the time of
incident she was about to reach the age of
majority. Thereafter the husband and wife
with their new born baby were peacefully
and happily residing. On the other hand, the
police personnel without anticipating the
amount of damage to the couple, have
submitted a charge sheet u/s 363, 366 IPC
and
the
learned
Magistrate
without
applying
judicial
mind
have
taken
cognizance of those offence on a proforma
order dated 8.2.2021, hence this petition.

LEGAL DISCUSSION :

[10]. Since in all the aforesaid
petitions,
the
report
u/s
173(2)
Cr.P.C./charge sheet was filed by the police
u/s 363, 366 I.P.C., the provisions of
Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. are relevant to
reproduce here, which reads thus :

"363. Punishment for kidnapping.-

Whoever kidnaps any person from
India or from lawful guardianship, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

366.
Kidnapping,
abducting
or
inducing woman to compel her marriage,
etc.-

Whoever kidnaps or abducts any
woman with intent that she may be
compelled, or knowing it to be likely that
she will be compelled, to marry any person
against her will, or in order that she may
be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse,
or knowing it to be likely that she will be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse,
shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal
intimidation as defined in this Code or of
abuse of authority or any other method of
compulsion, induces any woman to go from
any place with intent that she may be, or
knowing that it is likely that she will be,
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with
another person shall be punishable as
aforesaid."

[11]. Now taking into account the
aforementioned sections of Indian Penal
Code and comparing the same with 164
statements of respective victims, it is
written on the canvass, that in all the cases
the boys and girls are in previous
acquiescence and having affair with each
other. Both of them ran away from their
respective houses, keeping in view the
hostile treatment from their parties, who
were dead against such type of relationship.
Being major, they exercised their right to
choose their life partners, and some how or
the other they ran away and got married
either in temple or some Arya Samaj
Temple in a clandestine way. Not only this,
they got their marriage registered. After the
marriage both of them residing as happily
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
married couple and were blessed with their
progenies.

Under these circumstances, taking into
account the victims statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C., the entire prosecution case would
be reduced to big nullity. Still asking, the
boy to face the criminal case is nothing but
the harassment to the couple to its optimum
and should be quashed at the earliest given
opportunity.

[12]. As mentioned above, the
undercurrent of all aforementioned cases is
one and identical i.e. the couple who are
major got married but their parent for the
reason best known to them are creating
hurdles and impediments in their marital
life, instead of extending their good wishes
to them, the parent are poisoning their
marital life. In all these cases, there is
apparent tussle and tug of war between the
requirement of the law on one hand and the
marital life of the couple with their kids on
the other hand.

[13]. In a recent judgment Mafat Lal
and Another vs. State of Rajasthan in Crl.
Appeal No.592 of 2022 decided on
28.3.2022, Hon'ble Apex Court it has been
opined in no uncertain terms that when the
parties are agreed and living happy marital
life with their small kids, there cannot be
any conceivable impediment in accepting
the marriage. In yet another judgment
Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16
SCC 368, it has been opined by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that where an
individual is over 18 years of age, no fetters
could be placed on her choice on where to
reside or about the person with whom she
could stay. Whatever may be the date of
birth of petitioner, fact remains, that she is
at present more than 18 years of age. As the
petitioner is sui juris, no fetters could be
placed upon her choice of the person to
whom she wants to stay, nor any restriction
could be imposed regarding the place
where she should stay. The court or the
relatives of the petitioner can also not
substitute their opinion or preference for
that of a person in such a matter.

(14). This Court has observed that the
girls-prosecutrix, who have decided to
marry, are either on the family way or they
are blessed with their kids. The Court while
deciding the petitions must wear a humane
face and the practicality of the issue. The
parties are in their marital union for a
considerable period and they are parent of
one or more kids. At this stage to ask them
to face the criminal prosecution would
amount to bundle load of injustice to the
alleged wrongdoers and to their kids who
are nowhere connected with the alleged
offence.

[15]. The Court is conscious of its
role that the judicial system is tasked not
only with interpreting and upholding the
law but also with understanding of the
dynamics of society. The role of the Court
is much more onerous and beyond mere
application
and
interpretation
of
the
statutes. It involves an understanding of the
implications of its decisions on individuals
and the community at large. Striking this
balance requires a thorough examination of
the facts, legal precedents and involving
ethos of the society it serves. The Court
must
weigh
competing
interests,
considering the impact of its decisions on
the parties involved and the broader
implications for justice, fairness and social
order.

[16]. The dilemma at times faced by
the Court can be of trying to justify
State/Police action against an adolescent
2 All. Anand Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1155
couple who got married with each other
and continued to lead a peaceful life and
raise a family, and respect for obeying the
law of the land. This Court has time and
again reached to the conclusion that true
love between the individuals, one or both
of who may be a minor or at the verge of
majority, cannot be controlled through
rigours of law or State action. The cases as
the present one are those where the dilemma
of the Judge, which though may be rare, has to
take into account the dedicate balance which
the constitutional court or courts of law have
to strike a balance between the law and its
strict application and the repercussions of its
judgments and orders by application of such
laws in the society as a whole and the
individuals who are before it.

[17]. When the scale of justice has to
be weighed, they are not on the basis of
mathematical
precision
or
the
mathematical formulas or theorems, but at
times, while on one side of the scale there is
the law and other side of scale may carry
the entire life, happiness and the future of
toddlers, their parents and the parents of
their parents. The scale that reflects and
portrays such pure happiness sans any
criminality would definitely equal the scale
carrying the law as the application of law is
meant for maintaining the rule of law and
an orderly society.

[18]. Thus, in the light of the above
discussion of factual and the legal aspects of
the issue, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the subsistence of respective trials
of the applicants would make their lives and
new couple horrible and terrific. They would
lead their life under the sword of democles and
may sometimes adversely impact their inter-se
marital relationship. This is not the objective
of the law. The application of law has to be
given a humane face so that it would facilitate
an orderly society and not full of turmoil and
disturbance, therefore, the Court in exercise its
extra-ordinary power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., in order
to achieve the larger goal and interest, allows
all aforementioned four petitions i.e. (1)
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1327 of 2024
(2) APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1677 of
2015 connected with (3) APPLICATION U/S
482
No.
-
3413
of
2014
and
(4)
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6425 of 2023.
The impugned charge sheets, summoning
orders and the entire criminal proceedings
arising out thereof, pending against the
applicants in above mentioned case crime
numbers are hereby quashed.

[19]. All the petitions stand ALLOWED.

[20]. The Senior Registrar of this Court
is directed to communicate this judgment to
the respective sessions courts within 15
days from today for communication and
compliance.

[21]. Copy of this judgment shall be
placed in all aforementioned petitions.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1155
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 1531 of 2024

Anand Kumar Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pradeep Kumar, Adarsh Tripathi, Ashutosh
Tiwari, Shubham Tiwari

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.