High Court

identified by Shri Puttu Lal Misra, learned counsel for the applicant.

3. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief:- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances as stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 23.05.2022 passed against the applicant/accused in Criminal Case No. 9601 of 2022, State of U.P. Vrs. Amit Saroj and quash the related charge sheet No. 01 dated 08.03.2022 arising out FIR No. 0324 of 2021, U/s. 354, 323, 376 IPC registered on 02.06.2021 at Police Station- Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 13, District- Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice; (FIR contained in Annexure-01, impugned Charge Sheet in Annexure-02 and summoning order in Annexure-03) And further stay proceedings of the aforesaid case as well as effect and operation of Bailable Warrant dated 04.04.2023 during pendency of the present application U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant/accused."

4. It is stated that a perusal of allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR lodged by the opposite party no.2/victim, on 02.06.2021, would indicate that the applicant on the pretext of false promise of marriage, established physical relations with the victim and accordingly the present case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181; Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032 and being so the proceedings in issue are liable to be interfered by this Court.

5. It is stated that the applicant could not solemnize the marriage with the victim/opposite party no.2 and therefore she made a written complaint at P.S.- Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh and taking note of the allegations made therein including the fact that the applicant refused to solemnize the marriage with the victim/opposite party no.2, the FIR No.0324 was lodged on

02.06.2021 under Sections 354, 323 I.P.C. against the applicant.

6. It is further stated that during investigation the victim levelled allegations against the applicant to attract offence under Section 376 I.P.C.

7. It is stated that the victim/opposite party no.2 at the time of lodging the FIR was major and therefore taking note of the allegations levelled in the FIR as also during investigation, without any medical evidence in this regard, the Investigating Officer (in short, 'I.O.') filed charge sheet under Sections 363, 354, 376 IPC.

8. It is further stated that the victim/opposite party no.2/complainant now does not want to marry with the applicant and her marriage is settled with some other person and the same would be solemnized.

9. It is also stated that a perusal of statements of opposite party no.2/victim made during investigation in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. annexed as Annexure No.4 and 5 respectively would indicate that the applicant on the assurance of solemnizing the marriage established physical relations with the victim/opposite party no.2, who at that point of time was aged about 19-20 years.

10. It is also stated that on account of settlement of marriage of victim/opposite party no.2 with some other person now the victim/opposite party no.2 does not want to continue with the pending criminal proceedings.

11. It is also stated that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No.10 to the present application and according to the said compromise, the victim/opposite party no.2 does not want to continue with the criminal proceedings.

12. It is further stated that taking note of the entire facts, particularly the allegation levelled against the applicant in the FIR, subsequently exaggerated during investigation while taking statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., as well as Annexure 10, which is original deed of compromise as also the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar Vs. State of U.P. (supra); Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. (supra), the interference of this Court is required.

13. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations on the issue related to establishing physical relationship on assurance of marriage made in the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar (supra); Deepak Gulati (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar (supra) and present age of the victim/opposite party no.2 i.e. about 23 years, this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court in view of the aforesaid including the nature of relationship between the applicant and the victim/opposite party no.2 as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the future prospects of the victim/opposite party no.2 would be affected as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.324/2021, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

14. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

15. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Anand/-

identified by Shri Puttu Lal Misra, learned counsel for the applicant.

3. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief:- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances as stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 23.05.2022 passed against the applicant/accused in Criminal Case No. 9601 of 2022, State of U.P. Vrs. Amit Saroj and quash the related charge sheet No. 01 dated 08.03.2022 arising out FIR No. 0324 of 2021, U/s. 354, 323, 376 IPC registered on 02.06.2021 at Police Station- Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 13, District- Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice; (FIR contained in Annexure-01, impugned Charge Sheet in Annexure-02 and summoning order in Annexure-03) And further stay proceedings of the aforesaid case as well as effect and operation of Bailable Warrant dated 04.04.2023 during pendency of the present application U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant/accused."

4. It is stated that a perusal of allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR lodged by the opposite party no.2/victim, on 02.06.2021, would indicate that the applicant on the pretext of false promise of marriage, established physical relations with the victim and accordingly the present case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181; Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032 and being so the proceedings in issue are liable to be interfered by this Court.

5. It is stated that the applicant could not solemnize the marriage with the victim/opposite party no.2 and therefore she made a written complaint at P.S.- Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh and taking note of the allegations made therein including the fact that the applicant refused to solemnize the marriage with the victim/opposite party no.2, the FIR No.0324 was lodged on

02.06.2021 under Sections 354, 323 I.P.C. against the applicant.

6. It is further stated that during investigation the victim levelled allegations against the applicant to attract offence under Section 376 I.P.C.

7. It is stated that the victim/opposite party no.2 at the time of lodging the FIR was major and therefore taking note of the allegations levelled in the FIR as also during investigation, without any medical evidence in this regard, the Investigating Officer (in short, 'I.O.') filed charge sheet under Sections 363, 354, 376 IPC.

8. It is further stated that the victim/opposite party no.2/complainant now does not want to marry with the applicant and her marriage is settled with some other person and the same would be solemnized.

9. It is also stated that a perusal of statements of opposite party no.2/victim made during investigation in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. annexed as Annexure No.4 and 5 respectively would indicate that the applicant on the assurance of solemnizing the marriage established physical relations with the victim/opposite party no.2, who at that point of time was aged about 19-20 years.

10. It is also stated that on account of settlement of marriage of victim/opposite party no.2 with some other person now the victim/opposite party no.2 does not want to continue with the pending criminal proceedings.

11. It is also stated that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No.10 to the present application and according to the said compromise, the victim/opposite party no.2 does not want to continue with the criminal proceedings.

12. It is further stated that taking note of the entire facts, particularly the allegation levelled against the applicant in the FIR, subsequently exaggerated during investigation while taking statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., as well as Annexure 10, which is original deed of compromise as also the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar Vs. State of U.P. (supra); Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. (supra), the interference of this Court is required.

13. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations on the issue related to establishing physical relationship on assurance of marriage made in the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar (supra); Deepak Gulati (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar (supra) and present age of the victim/opposite party no.2 i.e. about 23 years, this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court in view of the aforesaid including the nature of relationship between the applicant and the victim/opposite party no.2 as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the future prospects of the victim/opposite party no.2 would be affected as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.324/2021, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

14. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

15. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Anand/-