High Court

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anurag Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Ms. Deepika Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.3/victim, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed for the following main relief:- "That for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quashed/set aside the Impugned Charge Sheet No. 313 of 2023 dated 03.08.2023, under section-363, 366, 376 of Indian Penal Code & 5 J(II)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, arising out of First Information Report No. 0529 of 2022, Police Station-Harpalpur, District-Hardoi, which has been filed before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (Crime against women), Hardoi, and quashing of entire criminal proceeding of Session Case No. 1460/2023 (State Versus Pankaj) registered against petitioner on the basis aforesaid impugned charge sheet, pending before Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (Crime against Women), Hardoi, as continuation of the same would tantamount to gross abuse of the process of law resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice, which is contained as Annexure No.1,2&3 to this petition. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the proceeding of Session Case No.1460/2023 (State Versus Pankaj) pending before Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (Crime against Women), Hardoi, during the pendency of the present case."

4. It is stated that a perusal of allegations levelled in the FIR lodged by the opposite party no.2, father of opposite party no.3/victim, would show that victim, aged about 16 years, at the time of lodging of FIR i.e. on 14.11.2022, was enticed away by the applicant with the help of other persons.

5. It is further stated that the applicant was having affair with the victim/opposite party no.3 and due to same she has married to applicant, on her own volition. This fact is evident from Annexure No.5, copy of marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Chandipurwa, Hardoi. 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.

6. It is further stated that since the victim has married to applicant and they are living peacefully in their matrimonial life with minor child, born on 23.08.2024.

7. It is further stated that in fact the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 (father 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 applicant and victim solemnized marriage and now the opposite party no.2/informant also does not want to continue with the case.

8. It is also stated that victim has not supported the prosecution case and the same is evident from the copy of the statement annexed as Annexure no(s).6 and 7 to the present application.

9. It is further stated that the victim was medically examined and upon examination she was found to be 18 years of age and this is evident from Annexure No.8 to the instant application.

10. Learned counsel for the side opposite based upon the statement of victim as well as the fact that the victim has solemnized marriage with application on her own volition, stated that the proceedings in issue may be quashed.

11. Upon consideration of the aforesaid and age of the opposite party no.3/victim i.e. 18 years, at the time of lodging of FIR, in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 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 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397 as also the fact that the applicant and victim have now married each other, as also the statement(s) of victim, 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 opposite party no.3/victim as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the matrimonial life of the applicant, opposite party no.3/victim and minor child would be affected/ruined 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 the ends of substantial justice, the proceedings based upon the settlement between the parties can be quashed, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in issue, quoted above in prayer clause, 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 :- 16.1.2025 Anand/-

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anurag Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Ms. Deepika Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.3/victim, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed for the following main relief:- "That for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quashed/set aside the Impugned Charge Sheet No. 313 of 2023 dated 03.08.2023, under section-363, 366, 376 of Indian Penal Code & 5 J(II)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, arising out of First Information Report No. 0529 of 2022, Police Station-Harpalpur, District-Hardoi, which has been filed before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (Crime against women), Hardoi, and quashing of entire criminal proceeding of Session Case No. 1460/2023 (State Versus Pankaj) registered against petitioner on the basis aforesaid impugned charge sheet, pending before Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (Crime against Women), Hardoi, as continuation of the same would tantamount to gross abuse of the process of law resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice, which is contained as Annexure No.1,2&3 to this petition. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the proceeding of Session Case No.1460/2023 (State Versus Pankaj) pending before Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (Crime against Women), Hardoi, during the pendency of the present case."

4. It is stated that a perusal of allegations levelled in the FIR lodged by the opposite party no.2, father of opposite party no.3/victim, would show that victim, aged about 16 years, at the time of lodging of FIR i.e. on 14.11.2022, was enticed away by the applicant with the help of other persons.

5. It is further stated that the applicant was having affair with the victim/opposite party no.3 and due to same she has married to applicant, on her own volition. This fact is evident from Annexure No.5, copy of marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Chandipurwa, Hardoi. 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.

6. It is further stated that since the victim has married to applicant and they are living peacefully in their matrimonial life with minor child, born on 23.08.2024.

7. It is further stated that in fact the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 (father 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 applicant and victim solemnized marriage and now the opposite party no.2/informant also does not want to continue with the case.

8. It is also stated that victim has not supported the prosecution case and the same is evident from the copy of the statement annexed as Annexure no(s).6 and 7 to the present application.

9. It is further stated that the victim was medically examined and upon examination she was found to be 18 years of age and this is evident from Annexure No.8 to the instant application.

10. Learned counsel for the side opposite based upon the statement of victim as well as the fact that the victim has solemnized marriage with application on her own volition, stated that the proceedings in issue may be quashed.

11. Upon consideration of the aforesaid and age of the opposite party no.3/victim i.e. 18 years, at the time of lodging of FIR, in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 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 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397 as also the fact that the applicant and victim have now married each other, as also the statement(s) of victim, 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 opposite party no.3/victim as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the matrimonial life of the applicant, opposite party no.3/victim and minor child would be affected/ruined 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 the ends of substantial justice, the proceedings based upon the settlement between the parties can be quashed, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in issue, quoted above in prayer clause, 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 :- 16.1.2025 Anand/-