JUDGMENT :

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Sri Jagendra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.2 by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

2. Counter affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 is also taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Ram Kinkar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Saran, Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Suryavanshi, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Jagendra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the entire record.

4. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has bee filed by the accused/ applicant for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.743 of 2019 (State vs. Pankaj) as well as charge sheet dated 12.11.2019 and the summoning order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Sultanpur arising out of Case Crime No.0447 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. & Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jaisinghpur, District Sultnapur, pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, in fact, a false first information report came to be lodged against the accused/ applicant by the first informant, who is the father of the victim. The accused/ applicant is innocent who has been falsely implicated in this case.

6. His further submission is that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has not supported the prosecution case. However, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim levelled the allegation of rape upon the present accused/ appellant also.

7. His next submission is that, in fact, presently, the accused/ applicant and the victim have married and are living happily together as husband and wife. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed.

8. His further submission is that having regard to the fact that the accused/ applicant and the victim are living together as husband and wife, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned criminal proceeding pending against the accused/ applicant.

9. Per contra, though, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has not opposed the prayer, however, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been enacted by the Legislature that it was formulated to effectively address the heinous crimes of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children. This act was introduced to provide for the protection of children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, etc. This act also provides for safeguarding the interests of the child at every stage of the judicial process by incorporating child-friendly mechanisms for reporting, recording of evidence, investigation and speedy trial of offences through designated Special Courts.

10. His further submission is that the alleged marriage between the applicant and the victim is not legal in the eye of law insofar as the annexure.4 is nothing but an agreement to marriage, which has no legal sanctity.

11. Learned A.G.A. for the State has also submitted that the victim was a child on the date of occurrence. Therefore, no compromise between such victim and the accused is permissible in law. Therefore, the present application is misconceived, which liable to be dismissed.

12. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.102 has held as under:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we