High Court

Awasthi, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the material brought on record.

3. The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief:- " Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed thia this Hon'ble Court may gracioulsey be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings or Crl. Case No.179 of 2024, State Vs. Dal Bahadur alias Sonu (arising out of case crime No.0306 of 2023,) Police Station- Jahangirabad, Barabanki, pending in the courtof Addl. Session Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Court No. 45, Barabanki, U/section 363/366/376/504/506 IPC and 5/6, POCSO Act, in the light of compromise, arrived at between the parties in the interest of justice."

4. It is stated that a perusal of allegations levelled in the FIR lodged by the opposite party no.2, brother of opposite party no.2/victim, would show that victim, aged about 17 years at the time of lodging of FIR i.e. on 01.11.2023, was enticed away by the applicant with the help of two other persons, who are brother and uncle, respectively, of the applicant.

5. It is further stated that according to the statement(s) of the victim recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the applicant and victim/opposite party no.3, aged about 20 years, were having affair and due to same she, on her own volition, left her house on

31.10.2023 and thereafter solemnized marriage with applicant on

06.11.2023, on her own volition, in Arya Samaj Mandir, Lucknow.

6. It is further stated that in fact the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 (brother of victim) only to pressurize the applicant and other family members on the issue of solemnizing the marriage with the victim and during the pendency of pending criminal proceedings in issue the marriage of the applicant and victim was solemnized on

06.11.2023 and therefore now the opposite party no.2/informant also does not want to continue with the case.

7. It is also stated that the opposite party no.3/victim in her statements in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have not supported the prosecution case and the same is evident from the copy of the statement annexed as Annexures 4 and 5 to the present application.

8. Taking note of the aforesaid and after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.6500 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated

24.07.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

9. It appears from the order dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure No.10) that the trial court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.

10. Learned counsel for the side opposite based upon the averments made in the counter affidavit(s) and the statement(s) of opposite party no.3/victim stated that the proceedings in issue may be quashed.

11. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case(s) of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 on the issue related to determination of age as according to certificate of age (Annexure No.6) the victim was born on 20.05.2006 and FIR indicates that she was 17 years old at the time of alleged incident and there is no genuine proof to establish that the date of birth indicated in the aforesaid documents is correct as also 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, and also the observations made by Apex Court 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, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.0306/2023, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

12. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Anand/-

Awasthi, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the material brought on record.

3. The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief:- " Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed thia this Hon'ble Court may gracioulsey be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings or Crl. Case No.179 of 2024, State Vs. Dal Bahadur alias Sonu (arising out of case crime No.0306 of 2023,) Police Station- Jahangirabad, Barabanki, pending in the courtof Addl. Session Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Court No. 45, Barabanki, U/section 363/366/376/504/506 IPC and 5/6, POCSO Act, in the light of compromise, arrived at between the parties in the interest of justice."

4. It is stated that a perusal of allegations levelled in the FIR lodged by the opposite party no.2, brother of opposite party no.2/victim, would show that victim, aged about 17 years at the time of lodging of FIR i.e. on 01.11.2023, was enticed away by the applicant with the help of two other persons, who are brother and uncle, respectively, of the applicant.

5. It is further stated that according to the statement(s) of the victim recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the applicant and victim/opposite party no.3, aged about 20 years, were having affair and due to same she, on her own volition, left her house on

31.10.2023 and thereafter solemnized marriage with applicant on

06.11.2023, on her own volition, in Arya Samaj Mandir, Lucknow.

6. It is further stated that in fact the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 (brother of victim) only to pressurize the applicant and other family members on the issue of solemnizing the marriage with the victim and during the pendency of pending criminal proceedings in issue the marriage of the applicant and victim was solemnized on

06.11.2023 and therefore now the opposite party no.2/informant also does not want to continue with the case.

7. It is also stated that the opposite party no.3/victim in her statements in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have not supported the prosecution case and the same is evident from the copy of the statement annexed as Annexures 4 and 5 to the present application.

8. Taking note of the aforesaid and after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.6500 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated

24.07.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

9. It appears from the order dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure No.10) that the trial court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.

10. Learned counsel for the side opposite based upon the averments made in the counter affidavit(s) and the statement(s) of opposite party no.3/victim stated that the proceedings in issue may be quashed.

11. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case(s) of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 on the issue related to determination of age as according to certificate of age (Annexure No.6) the victim was born on 20.05.2006 and FIR indicates that she was 17 years old at the time of alleged incident and there is no genuine proof to establish that the date of birth indicated in the aforesaid documents is correct as also 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, and also the observations made by Apex Court 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, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.0306/2023, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

12. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Anand/-