State of U.P. and Another v. Party

persons kidnapped the victim/first inforamant and took her to their house, and when her family members came to rescue her, the accused persons committed obscene acts. It was further alleged that similar acts had earlier been committed by the accused persons and had been witnessed by several persons. The victim ultimately prayed that legal action be taken against the accused persons.

4. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the victim and other witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet in this case on 06.05.2020 and cognizance was taken by the learned court concerned on 02.09.2020. 2 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 Thereafter, charges were framed during the course of trial, and the statement of the victim was recorded on 03.08.2023 in Special Case No.32 of 2020, State Vs. Ajay and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 354, 323/34, 452, 506 IPC and 8 POCSO Act. The victim did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the learned A.D.G.C. (Criminal).

5. During the pendency of the criminal case before the trial court, the applicants and opposite party no. 2, the informant, arrived at a compromise, and a compromise deed was executed between them on 06.12.2023. On the basis of this compromise, the applicants challenged the proceedings of the trial court arising out of aforesaid Case Crime No. 106 of 2020 by filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. When the matter was heard by this Court on 23.04.2024, the trial court was directed to verify the compromise, and it was ordered that the verification report be sent to this Court. Pursuant to the order dated

23.04.2024, the contesting parties appeared before the trial court, where the statement of the victim was recorded as CW1; the statement of applicant no. 2, Vijay, was recorded as CW2; the statement of applicant no. 3, Jaipal, was recorded as CW3; and the statement of applicant no. 4, Kamlesh, was recorded as CW4. Both contesting parties admitted that a compromise had taken place between them. The victim, in her statement recorded as CW1 before the trial court on 17.05.2024, stated that she has solemnized her marriage with Vijay (applicant no. 2) and has been living in his house. She further stated that a compromise has taken place between them, there was no dispute between the parties, and she did not want to proceed further. CW4, Smt. Kamlesh, applicant no. 4, also admitted that the victim is the wife of her son, Vijay (applicant no. 2), and that they have been living a happy married life since then. She further stated that a baby boy, now aged about three years, was born out of this wedlock. The trial court, after verifying the compromise, sent the verification report on 18.05.2024, which forms part of the record.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and a false FIR was lodged by the first informant. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer, without due 3 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 investigation, submitted the charge-sheet in this case, and the victim in her statement recorded during the course of trial, did not support the prosecution case. Even during the compromise proceedings, the victim admitted this fact that the marriage of applicant no. 2, Vijay, has been solemnized with her and that she has been living with him since then. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant no. 2 and the victim are living as husband and wife and have been blessed with a baby boy, now aged about three years, and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending in the trial court. He, therefore, prayed that the proceedings in the trial court be quashed in view of the compromise.

8. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer made by the applicants but could not dispute the fact that the marriage of the applicant no.2 has been solemnized with first informant/ victim and a child was born out of their wedlock. Learned AGA further submitted that since the prosecutrix was a child within the definition of the term "child" as defined in the POCSO Act, therefore, the subsequent development, if any, will not wipe out the criminality committed by the applicants as suggested by the learned counsel for the applicants. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala vs. Hafsal Rahman, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.24362 of 2021 and Ramji Lal Bairwa and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2025) 5 SCC 117, the learned AGA submitted that there can be no compromise in proceeding under the POCSO Act. Offence complained of against the accused/applicants is not only illegal but also immoral. Offence alleged to have been committed by the applicants is a heinous offence and amounts to an offence against society, as such, no interference is warranted by this Court in the present application and prayed for its dismissal.

9. I have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the records.

10. It is the admitted case of the victim that her marriage has been solemnized with applicant no.2 and it has come on record that a child was born out of their wedlock. The married couple are living together happily under the same roof for a long time, and that the dispute between the parties has been settled. The verification report dated 17.05.2024, sent by the learned trial court, and now part of the record, confirms that the compromise 4 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 has taken place and that the victim is living with applicant no. 2 as his wife.

11. Now, the question arises here as to whether the proceedings of a criminal case under sections 363, 366, 354, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act can be quashed by the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. or 528 B.N.S.S., if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and living as husband-wife for a long period.

12. Reference may be made to the judgements of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. The State By the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and other Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 433, wherein, the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and court cannot turn a blind eye to the said fact. In the submission of learned counsel for applicants, the ratio laid down by Apex Court in aforementioned judgements is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As such, no exception can be carved out in the case of present applicants with reference to the aforementioned judgements of Supreme Court inasmuch as the applicant no.1 has also solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and the parties are happily living together. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicants submits that the criminal prosecution of applicants cannot be sustained in law as well as fact and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

13. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that the parties have solemnized marriage and they are living together as husband and wife and a baby boy was born. The prosecutrix is now residing with the applicant no.2 as his legally wedded wife, no such material has been brought on record on the basis of which the marriage of the parties could be doubted. In view of the subsequent development, the criminality, if any, committed by the applicants now stands washed off. As such, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of the applicants. On account of the facts as noted above, the chances of conviction of the applicants are now not only remote but also bleak. As such, in case the criminal prosecution of the applicants is allowed to continue, a happy family comprising of applicant no.1 and the prosecutrix shall stand broken. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when 5 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.

14. The Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani (supra) and Mafat Lal (Supra) also quashed the proceedings against the accused therein on the grounds that the accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and secondly, the court cannot turn a blind eye to the said fact. Since the judgement rendered by Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani (supra) is a short one, therefore, the same is reproduced in its entirety: "Leave granted. The appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix belongs to Valayar community, which is a most backward community in the State of Tamilnadu. He works as a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him for committing rape under Sections 5(j)(ii)read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,

2012. He was convicted after trial for committing the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous Reason: imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur on

31.10.2018. The High Court, by an order dated 13.02.2019, upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this appeal. Mr. M.P.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that allegation against him was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her. He stated that, in fact, he married the prosecutrix and they have two children. The appellant submitted that this Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ought to do complete justice and it could not be in the interest of justice to disturb the family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. After hearing the matter for some time on 08 th March, 2022, we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has categorically stated that she has two children 6 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle. For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. In case, the appellant does not take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can move this Court for modification of this Order."

15. The Apex Court in the case of Shriram Urav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No(S). 41/2021, decided on 10.01.2025, also quashed the conviction as well as the sentence imposed upon the appellant on the ground that the appellant/accused and the complainant/victim had married each other. 7 A482 No. 12821 of 2024

16. Similarly, in the case of Dasari Srikant vs. State of Telangana reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 936, wherein, under identical circumstances and almost identical provisions the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings instituted against the accused therein. The relevant paragraph 8 to 10 of the Dasari Srikant (supra) read as under:- "8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger.

9. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court.

10. As a result, the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court and judgment dated 9th April, 2021 passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside."

17. In another judgment of Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the proceedings of offence, punishable under Section 354A, 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the ground of marriage between the accused and the victim. It was brought on record that from the wedlock between the accused and the victim, two children were born, whose documents were produced alongwith the appeal. The Apex Court in this case quashed the proceedings on the ground that no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution as it would cause undue harassment to the appellant/accused and the victim and their children.

18. The Supreme Court in another judgment of Madhukar and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7212 of 2025, alongwith Prabhakar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of 2025, quashed the 8 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 proceedings of case crime no.302 of 2023, dated 20.11.2023, under sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as quashed the proceedings of case crime no.304 of 2023, dated

21.11.2023, under sections 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509 and 506 IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties. Paragraph nos.6, 7 and 8 of the said judgment are reproduced herein:- "6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.

7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.

8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful 9 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 purpose and would only amount to abuse of process."

19. In my considered opinion, the fact of the case of Ramji Lal Bairwa (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, in the present case the applicant no.2 and the victim have solemnized their marriage and a baby boy was born out of their wedlock and they are living a happy married life for the last several years and the opposite party no.2/first informant has also entered into compromise, which was verified by the trial court on 17.05.2024, and if the proceedings of the Trial Court is not quashed by this Court, the applicant no.2 and the victim and their family members may sustain legal injury. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments i.e. Shriram Urav (supra), Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra), K. Dhandapani (supra) and Mafat Lal (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as the applicant no.2 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and the parties are happily living together with their baby boy and this Court cannot ignore the said fact.

20. In view of the discussion made herein above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed.

21. The entire proceedings of Special Case No.32 of 2020 (State vs. Ajay and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 354, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Swar, District Rampur, pending in the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.7, District Rampur, are hereby quashed.

22. In the event that the applicants fail to take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State, on her behalf, may approach this Court for modification of this order.

23. No order as to costs. November 19, 2025 Radhika (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

persons kidnapped the victim/first inforamant and took her to their house, and when her family members came to rescue her, the accused persons committed obscene acts. It was further alleged that similar acts had earlier been committed by the accused persons and had been witnessed by several persons. The victim ultimately prayed that legal action be taken against the accused persons.

4. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the victim and other witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet in this case on 06.05.2020 and cognizance was taken by the learned court concerned on 02.09.2020. 2 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 Thereafter, charges were framed during the course of trial, and the statement of the victim was recorded on 03.08.2023 in Special Case No.32 of 2020, State Vs. Ajay and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 354, 323/34, 452, 506 IPC and 8 POCSO Act. The victim did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the learned A.D.G.C. (Criminal).

5. During the pendency of the criminal case before the trial court, the applicants and opposite party no. 2, the informant, arrived at a compromise, and a compromise deed was executed between them on 06.12.2023. On the basis of this compromise, the applicants challenged the proceedings of the trial court arising out of aforesaid Case Crime No. 106 of 2020 by filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. When the matter was heard by this Court on 23.04.2024, the trial court was directed to verify the compromise, and it was ordered that the verification report be sent to this Court. Pursuant to the order dated

23.04.2024, the contesting parties appeared before the trial court, where the statement of the victim was recorded as CW1; the statement of applicant no. 2, Vijay, was recorded as CW2; the statement of applicant no. 3, Jaipal, was recorded as CW3; and the statement of applicant no. 4, Kamlesh, was recorded as CW4. Both contesting parties admitted that a compromise had taken place between them. The victim, in her statement recorded as CW1 before the trial court on 17.05.2024, stated that she has solemnized her marriage with Vijay (applicant no. 2) and has been living in his house. She further stated that a compromise has taken place between them, there was no dispute between the parties, and she did not want to proceed further. CW4, Smt. Kamlesh, applicant no. 4, also admitted that the victim is the wife of her son, Vijay (applicant no. 2), and that they have been living a happy married life since then. She further stated that a baby boy, now aged about three years, was born out of this wedlock. The trial court, after verifying the compromise, sent the verification report on 18.05.2024, which forms part of the record.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and a false FIR was lodged by the first informant. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer, without due 3 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 investigation, submitted the charge-sheet in this case, and the victim in her statement recorded during the course of trial, did not support the prosecution case. Even during the compromise proceedings, the victim admitted this fact that the marriage of applicant no. 2, Vijay, has been solemnized with her and that she has been living with him since then. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant no. 2 and the victim are living as husband and wife and have been blessed with a baby boy, now aged about three years, and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending in the trial court. He, therefore, prayed that the proceedings in the trial court be quashed in view of the compromise.

8. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer made by the applicants but could not dispute the fact that the marriage of the applicant no.2 has been solemnized with first informant/ victim and a child was born out of their wedlock. Learned AGA further submitted that since the prosecutrix was a child within the definition of the term "child" as defined in the POCSO Act, therefore, the subsequent development, if any, will not wipe out the criminality committed by the applicants as suggested by the learned counsel for the applicants. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala vs. Hafsal Rahman, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.24362 of 2021 and Ramji Lal Bairwa and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2025) 5 SCC 117, the learned AGA submitted that there can be no compromise in proceeding under the POCSO Act. Offence complained of against the accused/applicants is not only illegal but also immoral. Offence alleged to have been committed by the applicants is a heinous offence and amounts to an offence against society, as such, no interference is warranted by this Court in the present application and prayed for its dismissal.

9. I have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the records.

10. It is the admitted case of the victim that her marriage has been solemnized with applicant no.2 and it has come on record that a child was born out of their wedlock. The married couple are living together happily under the same roof for a long time, and that the dispute between the parties has been settled. The verification report dated 17.05.2024, sent by the learned trial court, and now part of the record, confirms that the compromise 4 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 has taken place and that the victim is living with applicant no. 2 as his wife.

11. Now, the question arises here as to whether the proceedings of a criminal case under sections 363, 366, 354, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act can be quashed by the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. or 528 B.N.S.S., if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and living as husband-wife for a long period.

12. Reference may be made to the judgements of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. The State By the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and other Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 433, wherein, the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and court cannot turn a blind eye to the said fact. In the submission of learned counsel for applicants, the ratio laid down by Apex Court in aforementioned judgements is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As such, no exception can be carved out in the case of present applicants with reference to the aforementioned judgements of Supreme Court inasmuch as the applicant no.1 has also solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and the parties are happily living together. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicants submits that the criminal prosecution of applicants cannot be sustained in law as well as fact and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

13. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that the parties have solemnized marriage and they are living together as husband and wife and a baby boy was born. The prosecutrix is now residing with the applicant no.2 as his legally wedded wife, no such material has been brought on record on the basis of which the marriage of the parties could be doubted. In view of the subsequent development, the criminality, if any, committed by the applicants now stands washed off. As such, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of the applicants. On account of the facts as noted above, the chances of conviction of the applicants are now not only remote but also bleak. As such, in case the criminal prosecution of the applicants is allowed to continue, a happy family comprising of applicant no.1 and the prosecutrix shall stand broken. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when 5 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.

14. The Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani (supra) and Mafat Lal (Supra) also quashed the proceedings against the accused therein on the grounds that the accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and secondly, the court cannot turn a blind eye to the said fact. Since the judgement rendered by Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani (supra) is a short one, therefore, the same is reproduced in its entirety: "Leave granted. The appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix belongs to Valayar community, which is a most backward community in the State of Tamilnadu. He works as a woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was registered against him for committing rape under Sections 5(j)(ii)read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,

2012. He was convicted after trial for committing the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous Reason: imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur on

31.10.2018. The High Court, by an order dated 13.02.2019, upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this appeal. Mr. M.P.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that allegation against him was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her. He stated that, in fact, he married the prosecutrix and they have two children. The appellant submitted that this Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ought to do complete justice and it could not be in the interest of justice to disturb the family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. After hearing the matter for some time on 08 th March, 2022, we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has categorically stated that she has two children 6 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle. For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. In case, the appellant does not take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can move this Court for modification of this Order."

15. The Apex Court in the case of Shriram Urav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No(S). 41/2021, decided on 10.01.2025, also quashed the conviction as well as the sentence imposed upon the appellant on the ground that the appellant/accused and the complainant/victim had married each other. 7 A482 No. 12821 of 2024

16. Similarly, in the case of Dasari Srikant vs. State of Telangana reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 936, wherein, under identical circumstances and almost identical provisions the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings instituted against the accused therein. The relevant paragraph 8 to 10 of the Dasari Srikant (supra) read as under:- "8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger.

9. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court.

10. As a result, the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court and judgment dated 9th April, 2021 passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside."

17. In another judgment of Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the proceedings of offence, punishable under Section 354A, 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the ground of marriage between the accused and the victim. It was brought on record that from the wedlock between the accused and the victim, two children were born, whose documents were produced alongwith the appeal. The Apex Court in this case quashed the proceedings on the ground that no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution as it would cause undue harassment to the appellant/accused and the victim and their children.

18. The Supreme Court in another judgment of Madhukar and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7212 of 2025, alongwith Prabhakar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of 2025, quashed the 8 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 proceedings of case crime no.302 of 2023, dated 20.11.2023, under sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as quashed the proceedings of case crime no.304 of 2023, dated

21.11.2023, under sections 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509 and 506 IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties. Paragraph nos.6, 7 and 8 of the said judgment are reproduced herein:- "6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.

7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.

8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful 9 A482 No. 12821 of 2024 purpose and would only amount to abuse of process."

19. In my considered opinion, the fact of the case of Ramji Lal Bairwa (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, in the present case the applicant no.2 and the victim have solemnized their marriage and a baby boy was born out of their wedlock and they are living a happy married life for the last several years and the opposite party no.2/first informant has also entered into compromise, which was verified by the trial court on 17.05.2024, and if the proceedings of the Trial Court is not quashed by this Court, the applicant no.2 and the victim and their family members may sustain legal injury. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments i.e. Shriram Urav (supra), Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra), K. Dhandapani (supra) and Mafat Lal (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as the applicant no.2 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and the parties are happily living together with their baby boy and this Court cannot ignore the said fact.

20. In view of the discussion made herein above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed.

21. The entire proceedings of Special Case No.32 of 2020 (State vs. Ajay and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 354, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Swar, District Rampur, pending in the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.7, District Rampur, are hereby quashed.

22. In the event that the applicants fail to take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State, on her behalf, may approach this Court for modification of this order.

23. No order as to costs. November 19, 2025 Radhika (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)