High Court

2. The applicant and the opposite party no. 2 (victim) are present before this Court, who have been identified by Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate and Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the said parties.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the victim/opposite party no. 2.

4. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief: "to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 95597 of 2024 "State Versus Rahul Kanaujia alias Rinku" arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024 Under Sections 376/406/313/323 I.P.C. Police Station-Bijnore, District-Lucknow pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow and impugned summoning order dated 30.9.2024 as well as impugned charge sheet dated 30.8.2024 contained in Annexure No.1 & 2 respectively to the accompanying affidavit, in the interest of justice."

5. It is stated that a conjoint reading of the FIR, the basis of pending criminal proceedings registered as Case Crime No. 223 of 2024 under Sections 376/406/313/323 I.P.C. Police Station- Bijnore, District- Lucknow and the statement of the victim recorded by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 180 BNSS, 2023 and thereafter the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 183 BNSS, 2023 would show that the applicant was well known to the victim and if the allegations related to making physical relations made by the victim are taken on its face value then in that eventuality the said relations were made by the applicant on the pretext of false marriage, though were not correct, and in this view of the matter, 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.

6. It is also stated that on account of dispute the FIR was lodged by the victim making allegations to attract offence under Sections 376/406/313/323 I.P.C.

7. It is also stated that during the pendency of the case before the trial Court said dispute between the parties at the instance of some relatives of the applicant and the victim has been resolved.

8. It is also stated that the victim has not taken/received any compensation from the State Exchequer.

9. It is also stated that taking note of the aforesaid as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar (supra); Deepak Gulati (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar (supra), the interference of this Court is required.

10. Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, based upon the averments made in the counter affidavit, which is on record, has also submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has not taken any money either from the applicant or from the State Exchequer and the dispute now has been resolved.

11. Paras 3 to 6 of the affidavit of the opposite party no. 2/victim, which is on record, supports the story of the applicant as would appear from the following paragraph of the said affidavit. arising "3. That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party no.2 are distance relative and they have cordial relationship with each other but thereafter some money dispute arose between them and on the instigation of some other persons, the complainant/opposite party no.2 has lodged the First Information Report and also recorded her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. from which the present criminal proceedings out. 4. That now due to interference of some other relatives of the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party no.2, the matter has been resolved and the money dispute have also been solved as such the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party no.2 have entered compromise. 5. That in fact no physical relationship was made between the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party no.2 or abortion of the complainant/opposite party no.2 was conducted but the such type of allegations have been made in furious and on the instigation of some persons. 6. That it is submitted that the opposite party no.2 has not taken any money either personally from the petitioner or received any compensation from the State Government under the provisions of Section 376 I.P.C." a

12. The opposite party no. 2/victim present before this Court has not disputed the aforesaid.

13. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to establishing physical relationship with the consent 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) as also that 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. 2/victim, now married, as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the settled matrimonial life of the opposite party no. 2/victim would be affected as 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, this Court is of the view that entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

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 :- 9.1.2025 Mohit Singh/-

2. The applicant and the opposite party no. 2 (victim) are present before this Court, who have been identified by Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate and Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the said parties.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the victim/opposite party no. 2.

4. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief: "to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 95597 of 2024 "State Versus Rahul Kanaujia alias Rinku" arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024 Under Sections 376/406/313/323 I.P.C. Police Station-Bijnore, District-Lucknow pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow and impugned summoning order dated 30.9.2024 as well as impugned charge sheet dated 30.8.2024 contained in Annexure No.1 & 2 respectively to the accompanying affidavit, in the interest of justice."

5. It is stated that a conjoint reading of the FIR, the basis of pending criminal proceedings registered as Case Crime No. 223 of 2024 under Sections 376/406/313/323 I.P.C. Police Station- Bijnore, District- Lucknow and the statement of the victim recorded by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 180 BNSS, 2023 and thereafter the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 183 BNSS, 2023 would show that the applicant was well known to the victim and if the allegations related to making physical relations made by the victim are taken on its face value then in that eventuality the said relations were made by the applicant on the pretext of false marriage, though were not correct, and in this view of the matter, 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.

6. It is also stated that on account of dispute the FIR was lodged by the victim making allegations to attract offence under Sections 376/406/313/323 I.P.C.

7. It is also stated that during the pendency of the case before the trial Court said dispute between the parties at the instance of some relatives of the applicant and the victim has been resolved.

8. It is also stated that the victim has not taken/received any compensation from the State Exchequer.

9. It is also stated that taking note of the aforesaid as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar (supra); Deepak Gulati (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar (supra), the interference of this Court is required.

10. Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, based upon the averments made in the counter affidavit, which is on record, has also submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has not taken any money either from the applicant or from the State Exchequer and the dispute now has been resolved.

11. Paras 3 to 6 of the affidavit of the opposite party no. 2/victim, which is on record, supports the story of the applicant as would appear from the following paragraph of the said affidavit. arising "3. That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party no.2 are distance relative and they have cordial relationship with each other but thereafter some money dispute arose between them and on the instigation of some other persons, the complainant/opposite party no.2 has lodged the First Information Report and also recorded her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. from which the present criminal proceedings out. 4. That now due to interference of some other relatives of the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party no.2, the matter has been resolved and the money dispute have also been solved as such the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party no.2 have entered compromise. 5. That in fact no physical relationship was made between the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party no.2 or abortion of the complainant/opposite party no.2 was conducted but the such type of allegations have been made in furious and on the instigation of some persons. 6. That it is submitted that the opposite party no.2 has not taken any money either personally from the petitioner or received any compensation from the State Government under the provisions of Section 376 I.P.C." a

12. The opposite party no. 2/victim present before this Court has not disputed the aforesaid.

13. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to establishing physical relationship with the consent 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) as also that 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. 2/victim, now married, as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the settled matrimonial life of the opposite party no. 2/victim would be affected as 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, this Court is of the view that entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

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 :- 9.1.2025 Mohit Singh/-