Allahabad High Court

cousin brother of the applicant FIR No. 20 of 2024 under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 67 of IT Act was lodged on 22.01.2024 against the complainant of the present case with the allegation that applicant was the cousin brother of Atul Shukla who was residing with his family.

4. As the complainant who was a female friend of the applicant was also visiting his house and at several times, she came and started abusing him and his wife by giving the threat that she will defame his wife on the social media (Instagram) and several indecent comments in relation to his wife were circulated as a result his wife is in mental trauma. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation of the aforesaid case was started then only with the intention to make pressure on the applicant as well as his cousin brother.

5. FIR No. 250 of 2024 under Section 376(n)(2), 323, 504 and 506 was lodged on the written complaint of the present case on 08.05.2024. He further submitted that charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in FIR No. 20 of 2024 on 05.04.2024. He further submitted that the investigation of FIR No. 250 of 2024 was going on and in the meantime, issue was resolved between the parties by way of compromise. During the pendency of investigation of the case in question, the complainant of present case filed one compromise affidavit dated

05.07.2024 before the Investigating Officer and he further submitted that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with the applicant on 01.06.2024 and it was also registered before the Marriage Registrar on 03.06.2024.

6. Thereafter, the statement of complainant was recorded under section 180 BNSS thereafter statement of complainant was recorded under Section 183 BNSS on 10.06.2024 in which she categorically stated that the applicant and complainant were friends and offer was also made for marriage from the side of complainant and on the pretext of marriage, 3 A482 No. 8807 of 2025 physical relations were made but in January, 2024 complainant denied for solemnizing the marriage as a result on 08.05.2024, FIR was lodged and thereafter complainant tendered his apology and the issue has been resolved and on 01.06.2024, marriage has already been solemnized.

7. But after marriage, the behavior of family members was not good but she does not want to proceed in the case in question. Considering the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC as well as the marriage of applicant with the complainant and the final report no. 01 of 2024 dated 03.07.2024 was submitted by the Investigating Officer with the observation that considering the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC as she does not want to prosecute the applicant, the final report was submitted.

8. Counsel for the applicant submitted as the intention of the applicant was not to live peacefully with the applicant but she was willing to blackmail the applicant as a result she filed protest petition dated

19.09.2024 before the learned Magistrate on the basis of concocted facts and the learned Magistrate allowed the protest petition directing the SHO of the concerned Police Station to ensure for further investigation and also submission of the police report on 12.11.2024, thereafter in place of investigating the contents of statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 as well as 164 CrPC earlier her fresh statement were recorded on 12.12.2024 under Section 180 as well as 183 BNSS and there after the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet under Section 376(n)(2), 323, 504, 506 IPC against the applicant and as the applicant was not aware about the further proceeding initiated by the Police on the behest of the complainant of the present case and he was also taken into custody on

22.02.2025 and sent to jail and thereafter he was enlarged on bail.

9. Counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIROnline 2024 SC 785 and Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIROnline 2022 SC 1227 and requested for kind indulgence of this Court.

10. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of applicant and 4 A482 No. 8807 of 2025 submitted that the chargesheet has already been filed by the Investigating Officer and all these facts can be examined by the learned trial Court, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as it is evident from the record that initially one FIR No. 20 of 2024 was lodged by the cousin brother of the applicant against the complainant of the present case and in which charge- sheet was submitted on 05.04.2024 and thereafter FIR of the present case was lodged by the complainant on 08.05.2024. As during the course of investigation, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the complainant on 01.06.2024 and thereafter marriage was registered on

03.06.2024 before the marriage registrar. In the meantime, issue was resolved and one petition was filed by the private respondent with the consent of the cousin brother of the applicant before this Court, i.e., Application U/S 482 No. 5469 of 2024 which was disposed of with the direction to the competent Court to verify the contents of the compromise between the parties and thereafter the contents were verified and second Application U/S 482 No. 6406 of 2024 was filed by the private respondents for quashing of the proceedings arising from case crime no. 20 of 2024 under Section 504, 506 IPC and Section 67 of IT Act, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2024. Order dated

25.07.2024 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 6406 of 2024 is as under :- "Sri Karunesh Singh, learned Advocates has filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. Supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a certified copy of of compromise as also the order of verification passed on the same by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow on 05.07.2024, is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamlesh Singh, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with under 5 A482 No. 8807 of 2025 Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "BNSS") has been filed for the following main relief:- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the Charge sheet no. 01/2023 dated 05/04/2024 filed in F.I.R No. 0020/2024 under sections 504, 506 IPC & Section 67 Of the Information and Technology Act and Summoning order dated 30/05/2024 passed in Criminal case no.50462/2024 under sections 504, 506 IPC & Section 67 of the IT Act which is pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Custom, Lucknow as well as the entire criminal proceedings of case crime no. 50462 of 2024 mentioned herein above and which is pending against the present Applicant." It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5469 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 19.06.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. It appears from the order dated 05.07.2024(Annexure No. 6) 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. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the nature of dispute/crime as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, 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,

cousin brother of the applicant FIR No. 20 of 2024 under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 67 of IT Act was lodged on 22.01.2024 against the complainant of the present case with the allegation that applicant was the cousin brother of Atul Shukla who was residing with his family.

4. As the complainant who was a female friend of the applicant was also visiting his house and at several times, she came and started abusing him and his wife by giving the threat that she will defame his wife on the social media (Instagram) and several indecent comments in relation to his wife were circulated as a result his wife is in mental trauma. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation of the aforesaid case was started then only with the intention to make pressure on the applicant as well as his cousin brother.

5. FIR No. 250 of 2024 under Section 376(n)(2), 323, 504 and 506 was lodged on the written complaint of the present case on 08.05.2024. He further submitted that charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in FIR No. 20 of 2024 on 05.04.2024. He further submitted that the investigation of FIR No. 250 of 2024 was going on and in the meantime, issue was resolved between the parties by way of compromise. During the pendency of investigation of the case in question, the complainant of present case filed one compromise affidavit dated

05.07.2024 before the Investigating Officer and he further submitted that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with the applicant on 01.06.2024 and it was also registered before the Marriage Registrar on 03.06.2024.

6. Thereafter, the statement of complainant was recorded under section 180 BNSS thereafter statement of complainant was recorded under Section 183 BNSS on 10.06.2024 in which she categorically stated that the applicant and complainant were friends and offer was also made for marriage from the side of complainant and on the pretext of marriage, 3 A482 No. 8807 of 2025 physical relations were made but in January, 2024 complainant denied for solemnizing the marriage as a result on 08.05.2024, FIR was lodged and thereafter complainant tendered his apology and the issue has been resolved and on 01.06.2024, marriage has already been solemnized.

7. But after marriage, the behavior of family members was not good but she does not want to proceed in the case in question. Considering the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC as well as the marriage of applicant with the complainant and the final report no. 01 of 2024 dated 03.07.2024 was submitted by the Investigating Officer with the observation that considering the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC as she does not want to prosecute the applicant, the final report was submitted.

8. Counsel for the applicant submitted as the intention of the applicant was not to live peacefully with the applicant but she was willing to blackmail the applicant as a result she filed protest petition dated

19.09.2024 before the learned Magistrate on the basis of concocted facts and the learned Magistrate allowed the protest petition directing the SHO of the concerned Police Station to ensure for further investigation and also submission of the police report on 12.11.2024, thereafter in place of investigating the contents of statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 as well as 164 CrPC earlier her fresh statement were recorded on 12.12.2024 under Section 180 as well as 183 BNSS and there after the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet under Section 376(n)(2), 323, 504, 506 IPC against the applicant and as the applicant was not aware about the further proceeding initiated by the Police on the behest of the complainant of the present case and he was also taken into custody on

22.02.2025 and sent to jail and thereafter he was enlarged on bail.

9. Counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIROnline 2024 SC 785 and Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIROnline 2022 SC 1227 and requested for kind indulgence of this Court.

10. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of applicant and 4 A482 No. 8807 of 2025 submitted that the chargesheet has already been filed by the Investigating Officer and all these facts can be examined by the learned trial Court, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as it is evident from the record that initially one FIR No. 20 of 2024 was lodged by the cousin brother of the applicant against the complainant of the present case and in which charge- sheet was submitted on 05.04.2024 and thereafter FIR of the present case was lodged by the complainant on 08.05.2024. As during the course of investigation, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the complainant on 01.06.2024 and thereafter marriage was registered on

03.06.2024 before the marriage registrar. In the meantime, issue was resolved and one petition was filed by the private respondent with the consent of the cousin brother of the applicant before this Court, i.e., Application U/S 482 No. 5469 of 2024 which was disposed of with the direction to the competent Court to verify the contents of the compromise between the parties and thereafter the contents were verified and second Application U/S 482 No. 6406 of 2024 was filed by the private respondents for quashing of the proceedings arising from case crime no. 20 of 2024 under Section 504, 506 IPC and Section 67 of IT Act, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2024. Order dated

25.07.2024 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 6406 of 2024 is as under :- "Sri Karunesh Singh, learned Advocates has filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. Supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a certified copy of of compromise as also the order of verification passed on the same by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow on 05.07.2024, is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamlesh Singh, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with under 5 A482 No. 8807 of 2025 Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "BNSS") has been filed for the following main relief:- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the Charge sheet no. 01/2023 dated 05/04/2024 filed in F.I.R No. 0020/2024 under sections 504, 506 IPC & Section 67 Of the Information and Technology Act and Summoning order dated 30/05/2024 passed in Criminal case no.50462/2024 under sections 504, 506 IPC & Section 67 of the IT Act which is pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Custom, Lucknow as well as the entire criminal proceedings of case crime no. 50462 of 2024 mentioned herein above and which is pending against the present Applicant." It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5469 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 19.06.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. It appears from the order dated 05.07.2024(Annexure No. 6) 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. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the nature of dispute/crime as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, 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,