High Court

cognizance order dated 30.1.2024 arising out of case crime No. 367 of 2023, Police station-Deoraniya, District-Bareilly compromise in terms of settlement/compromise undertaken between victim/opposite party no.2 as well as accused applicants. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding proceedings of Session Trial no. 355 of 2024, (State of U.P. Va Vakeel Ahmad & others), court of Additional Pending in the Session Judge/F.T.C.1st, Bareilly, during the pendency of present application, otherwise the applicants shall suffer an irreparable loss and/ or may pass any other and further order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice."

4. Mr. Bipin Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicants submits that though applicants are named and charge-sheeted accused and also facing trial before court below in aforementioned Sessions Trial, however, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as have now emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicants cannot be sustained any further. As such, the present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicants submits that criminal prosecution of applicants was set in motion when an F.I.R. dated 29.10.2023 was lodged by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2, which was registered as Case Crime No.Case Crime No.0367 of 2023 under sections 454, 420, 376, 323, 504, 506 and 120B I.P.C., Police station- Deoraniya, District-Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R. seven persons i.e. applicants herein, have been nominated as named accused. However, subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R., applicant-1 solemnized marriage (Nikah) with the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 on 27.10.2024. Photocopy of the Nikahnama has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. By reason of above, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant-1. On account of above, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. Bonafide of the parties is also explicit from the fact that parties have applied for registration of their marriage as contemplated under Special Marriage Act, copy of the application for marriage registration certificate is on record and is at page 83 of the paper book. Subsequently, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties a settlement agreement dated 13.11.2024 was drawn. The said settlement agreement was filed before court below

01.02.2025 supported by an affidavit of the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 as well as the accused/applicants. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants thus submits that in view of subsequent developments that have taken place, the criminality, if any, committed by applicants shall now stand washed of. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. On the above conspectus, he therefore contends that criminal prosecution of applicants is liable to be quashed. In case the criminal prosecution of applicants is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. He therefore submits that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for applicants then referred 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 another Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC

433. With reference above, the learned counsel for applicants contends that the Apex Court in aforementioned judgements quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. No exception can be carve out in the case of present applicant to the aforementioned judgements of Supreme Court as applicant-1 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix.

7. 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 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."

8. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned judgement is squarely applicable to the present case as applicant-1 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants contends that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

9. Per Contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. submits that since the applicants are facing trial under Section 376 I.P.C. also, therefore, compromise entered into by the parties is of no relevance. Referring to the judgement of Apex Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR OnLine 2019 SC 1716, it is urged by the learned A.G.A. that the Apex Court in aforementioned judgement has itself provided that there can be no compromise in matters relating to rape and sexual assault. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that in view of above, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Mani Shandilya the learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party- 2 has supported the present application. He submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. In the submission of learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 it is now an admitted fact that applicant-1 has solemnized marriage (Nikah) with the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2. Consequently, the prosecutrix is now the legally wedded wife of applicant-1 and is residing with him as his legally wedded wife. He further submits that the parties have applied for registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party--2 that he cannot have any objection in case the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

11. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that applicant-1 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and prosecutrix is residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Praveen Mani Shandilya, learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record this court finds that subsequent to the F.I.R. dated 29.10.2023 lodged by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and giving rise to present criminal proceedings, applicant-1, Alim Ahmad solemnized marriage (Nikah) with the prosecutrix on 27.10.2024. Photocopy of Nikahnama is on record as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. Consequently, by reason of above, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant and therefore, she started residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. Bonafide of the parties is further evident from the fact that the parties have applied for registration of their marriage in terms of Special Marriage Act on 13.11.2024. Furthermore the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 has put in appearance in this application but she has not opposed the present application. In view of the subsequent developments, that have taken place between the parties, the criminality, if any, committed by accused/applicants now stands washed of. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of accused/applicants. On account of the facts as noted above, the chances of conviction of accused/applicant are now not only remote but also bleak in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. As such the continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets. As such, in case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family comprising of accused/applicant and the prosecutrix shall stand broken.

13. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

14. It is accordingly allowed.

15. The entire proceedings in Session Trial no. 355 of 2024, (State of U.P. Vs. Vakeel Ahmad & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 367 of 2023, under sections 454, 420, 323, 504, 506, 376(2) (n) I.P.C., Police station-Deoraniya, District-Bareilly, now pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.Ist, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

16. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 YK

cognizance order dated 30.1.2024 arising out of case crime No. 367 of 2023, Police station-Deoraniya, District-Bareilly compromise in terms of settlement/compromise undertaken between victim/opposite party no.2 as well as accused applicants. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding proceedings of Session Trial no. 355 of 2024, (State of U.P. Va Vakeel Ahmad & others), court of Additional Pending in the Session Judge/F.T.C.1st, Bareilly, during the pendency of present application, otherwise the applicants shall suffer an irreparable loss and/ or may pass any other and further order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice."

4. Mr. Bipin Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicants submits that though applicants are named and charge-sheeted accused and also facing trial before court below in aforementioned Sessions Trial, however, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as have now emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicants cannot be sustained any further. As such, the present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicants submits that criminal prosecution of applicants was set in motion when an F.I.R. dated 29.10.2023 was lodged by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2, which was registered as Case Crime No.Case Crime No.0367 of 2023 under sections 454, 420, 376, 323, 504, 506 and 120B I.P.C., Police station- Deoraniya, District-Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R. seven persons i.e. applicants herein, have been nominated as named accused. However, subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R., applicant-1 solemnized marriage (Nikah) with the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 on 27.10.2024. Photocopy of the Nikahnama has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. By reason of above, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant-1. On account of above, the prosecutrix started residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. Bonafide of the parties is also explicit from the fact that parties have applied for registration of their marriage as contemplated under Special Marriage Act, copy of the application for marriage registration certificate is on record and is at page 83 of the paper book. Subsequently, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties a settlement agreement dated 13.11.2024 was drawn. The said settlement agreement was filed before court below

01.02.2025 supported by an affidavit of the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 as well as the accused/applicants. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants thus submits that in view of subsequent developments that have taken place, the criminality, if any, committed by applicants shall now stand washed of. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. On the above conspectus, he therefore contends that criminal prosecution of applicants is liable to be quashed. In case the criminal prosecution of applicants is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. He therefore submits that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for applicants then referred 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 another Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC

433. With reference above, the learned counsel for applicants contends that the Apex Court in aforementioned judgements quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. No exception can be carve out in the case of present applicant to the aforementioned judgements of Supreme Court as applicant-1 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix.

7. 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 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."

8. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned judgement is squarely applicable to the present case as applicant-1 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants contends that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

9. Per Contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. submits that since the applicants are facing trial under Section 376 I.P.C. also, therefore, compromise entered into by the parties is of no relevance. Referring to the judgement of Apex Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR OnLine 2019 SC 1716, it is urged by the learned A.G.A. that the Apex Court in aforementioned judgement has itself provided that there can be no compromise in matters relating to rape and sexual assault. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that in view of above, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Mani Shandilya the learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party- 2 has supported the present application. He submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present application. In the submission of learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 it is now an admitted fact that applicant-1 has solemnized marriage (Nikah) with the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2. Consequently, the prosecutrix is now the legally wedded wife of applicant-1 and is residing with him as his legally wedded wife. He further submits that the parties have applied for registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party--2 that he cannot have any objection in case the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

11. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that applicant-1 has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and prosecutrix is residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Praveen Mani Shandilya, learned counsel representing the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record this court finds that subsequent to the F.I.R. dated 29.10.2023 lodged by the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and giving rise to present criminal proceedings, applicant-1, Alim Ahmad solemnized marriage (Nikah) with the prosecutrix on 27.10.2024. Photocopy of Nikahnama is on record as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. Consequently, by reason of above, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant and therefore, she started residing with applicant-1 as his legally wedded wife. Bonafide of the parties is further evident from the fact that the parties have applied for registration of their marriage in terms of Special Marriage Act on 13.11.2024. Furthermore the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 has put in appearance in this application but she has not opposed the present application. In view of the subsequent developments, that have taken place between the parties, the criminality, if any, committed by accused/applicants now stands washed of. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of accused/applicants. On account of the facts as noted above, the chances of conviction of accused/applicant are now not only remote but also bleak in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. As such the continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets. As such, in case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family comprising of accused/applicant and the prosecutrix shall stand broken.

13. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

14. It is accordingly allowed.

15. The entire proceedings in Session Trial no. 355 of 2024, (State of U.P. Vs. Vakeel Ahmad & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 367 of 2023, under sections 454, 420, 323, 504, 506, 376(2) (n) I.P.C., Police station-Deoraniya, District-Bareilly, now pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.Ist, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

16. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 YK