✦ High Court of India · 02 Jan 2025

Others v. State of U.P. and Another)

Case Details High Court of India · 02 Jan 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

02 Jan 2025

Bench

ADDITIONAL CIVIL PARTIES AGREED THAT HINDU MARRIAGE ACT PRINCIPAL

Length

4,806 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §320 Code of Criminal Procedure §482 Code of Criminal Procedure Constitution of India §320 Constitution of India §482 Constitution of India Indian Penal Code §306 Indian Penal Code §307 Indian Penal Code §376 Indian Penal Code §406 Indian Penal Code §504 Indian Penal Code

Cited in this judgment

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. This instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash summoning order dated 7.6.2023 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 7475 of 2019 (Chandrapal Vs. Sonu Pal & Ors.), under Sections 406, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. against the applicant nos.1 &4 and under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC against applicant no.2 &3, Police Station Govind Nagar, District KThe 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.anpur Nagar pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No.9 Kanpur Nagar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the present matter may be amicably settled by way of mediation and conciliation, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. In view of the above, it is directed that applicants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- within three weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of this Court as mediation fee. The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre with the direction that after deposit of such amount, by the applicant, it shall issue notice to the parties fixing some date for mediation and shall make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation and conciliation proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period List this case after three months before the appropriate Bench along with report of Mediation Centre. months. Till the next date of listing, proceedings of the aforementioned case shall remain stayed against the applicants. It is made clear that in case there occurs default by the applicants either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed, the interim order shall cease to operate and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the appropriate Bench for passing orders in the matter. "

4. Subsequently, another family member of the wife namely Amit Pal also approached this Court by means of an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.42843 of 2023 (Amit Pal Vs. State of U.P. and Another), wherein, an interim order dated 23.11.2023 was passed by this Court. For ready reference, the order dated 23.11.2023 is extracted hereinbelow:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicants seeks to quash the summoning order dated 07.06.2023 including the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 7475 of 2019, , under sections 406, 354, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar and further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case has been made.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the present matter may be amicably settled by way of mediation and conciliation, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

4. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps may be taken within a week.

5. The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre with the direction that it shall issue notice to the parties fixing some date for mediation and shall make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation and conciliation proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

6. List after three months before the appropriate Bench along with the report of Mediation Centre.

7. Till the next date of listing, proceedings of aforesaid case, shall remain stayed against the applicants.

8. It is made clear that in case there occurs default by the applicants in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed, the interim order shall cease to operate and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the appropriate Bench for passing orders in the matter.

9. Connect with APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29736 of 2023. "

5. In compliance of aforesaid orders parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad and agreed for a compromise settlement. Accordingly, a settlement agreement dated 17.01.2024 was drawn. The same reads as under:- "SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 17.01.2024, between Sunam Pal (Applicant No. 3-Wife) and Pravesh Pal (Husband) (S/o-O.P. No. 2). Whereas Disputes and differences had crisen between the Parties hereto Application U/S 482 No. 29736 of 2023 as filed before the Hon'ble High Court The matter was referred to mediation/conciliation vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed by benen of Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J. The parties agreed that Mr. J.P. Gupta and Mr. G.S. Srivastava, Advocates would act as their Conciliator/Mediator, in the Mediation Case No. 4320/2023. Several joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/ Mediation on 01-11-2023, 22-11-2023, 06-12-2023, 13-12- 2023, 20-12-2023, 10-01- 2024 and 17-01-2024 the parties have with the assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amic able solution resolving the above-mentioned disputes and differences. The marriage of Sonam Pal (Applicant No. 3-Wife) and Pravesh Pal (Husband) (S/o- OP. No. 21 was solemnized 13.02.2017. Out of aforesaid wedlock, paries have no issue. The parties have been living separately since 12.06.2019. The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediators/Conciliators. in view of the Interim Settlement Agreement dated 20.12.2023, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:- a) That it is stated by the parties that real name of the Wife is Sonam Pal @ Divya Pal instead of Sonam Pal (Wife) as mentioned in the array of the parties of the present ease. b) That the parties have have settled their dispute and decided to live separately and in this regard tiwy have filed a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Dehat and the same is registered as Case No. 18 of 2024. The certified copy of the aforesaid divorce petition is being annexed to this settlen.ent- agreement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. c) That it has been agreed between the parties that the husband shall pay one time settlement amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the wife which includes permanent alimony, Stridhan and maintenance by way of demand draft. d) That on 20.12.2023, the husband had produced a demand draft bearing no. 840563 dated 12.12.2023 for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) drawn on State Bank of India in favour of Divya (wife), which was kept in the file concerned with the consent of the parties and today i.e. 17.01.2024 the same has been handed over to the Divya Pal (wife) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. e. That it has been agreed berween the parties that the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 25.000 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) shall be paid by Pravesh Pal (Husband) (S/o-O.P. No. 2) to Sonam Pal (Applicant No. 3- Wife) at the time of final judgment in Case No. 18 of 2024 pending in Family Court, Kanpur Dehat by way of demand draft. That as agreed in para 7(1) of the Interim Settlensent dated 20.12.2023, the said vehicle namely Honda Activa having registration No. UP 78 ER 5766 has been transferred by the husband to the wife and she has acknowledged the recipt of the same. 2) That Divya Pal Sonam Pal (wife) moved withdrawal application in Case No. 892 of 2023 u/s 125(3) of Cr.P.C. and produced the certiied copy of the same, which is being annexed to the settlement for kind perural of this Hon'ble Court. h) That Divya Pal @ Sonam Pal (wife) shall move withdrawal application in Case Crime No. 397/2019 (Divya Pal @ Sonam Pal Vs. Chandra Pal) filed u's 376, 354, 506, 507 IPC, P.S.-Govindpur, Kanpur Nagar, pending before A.C.J. (J.D.)-09, Kanpur Nagar within three months. 1)That it has also been agreed between the parties that all civil and criminal cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned. i That the parties will not file any fresh case against each other in respect of this matrimonial dispute. They have no claim against each other in future also. ) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse. B signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that the Application U/S 482 No. 29736 of 2023 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the 2. dies hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation."

6. Similarly in compliance of order dated 23.11.2023 passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.42843 of 2023 (Amit Pal Vs. State of U.P. and Another), a settlement agreement was arrived at between the parties on 17.01.2024. The same reads as under:- "This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 17.01.2024, between Sonam Pal (Wife) (niece of Applicant namely Amit Pal) and Pravesh Pal (Husband) (S/o-O.P. No. 2). WHEREAS Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto Application U/S 482 No. 42843 of 2023 as filed before the Hon'ble High Court. The matter was referred to mediation/conciliat on vide order dated 23.11.2023 passed by bench of Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J. The parties agreed that Mr. J.P. Gupta and Mr. G.S. Srivastava, Advocates would act as their Conciliator/Mediator, in the Mediation Case No. 0108/2024. Several joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/ Mediation on 10-01-2024 and 17-01-2024 the parties have with the assistance of the Mediator Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above- mentioned disputes and differences. The marriage of Sonam Pal (Wife) (niece of Applicant) and Pravesh Pal (Husband) (So-O.P. No. 2) was solemnized 13.02.2017. Out of aforesaid wedlock, parties have no issue. The parties have been living separately since 12.06.2019. The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Meatators Conc.fiators. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parries hereto:- That it is stated by une parties that real name of the Wife is Sonam Pal @ Divya Pal instead of Sonam Pal (Wife) as mentioned in the array of the parties of the present case. b) the parties have have settled their dispute and decided to live separately and in this regard they have filed a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Dehat and the same is registered as Case No. 18 of 2024. The certified copy of the aforesaid divorce petition has annexed in the connected case Application U/S 482 No. 29736 of 2023 (M.C. No. 4320/2023). c) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 25.000% (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) shall be paid by Pravesh Pai (Husband) (S/o-O.P. No. 2) to (Wife) (niece of Applicant) at the time of final judgment in Case No. 18 of 2024 pending in Family Court, Kanpur Dehat by way of demand draft. d) That on 20.12.2023, the husband had produced a demand draft bearing no. 840563 dated 12.12.2023 for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) drawn on State Bank of India in favour of Divya (wife), which was kept in the file concerned with the consent of the parties and today i.e. 17.01.2024 the same has been handed over to the Divya Pal (wife) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. e) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 25.000% (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) shall be paid by Pravesh Pai (Husband) (S/o-O.P. No. 2) to (Wife) (niece of Applicant) at the time of final judgment in Case No. 18 of 2024 pending in Family Court, Kanpur Dehat by way of demand draft. f) That as agreed in para 7(f) of the Interim Settlement dated 20.12.2023 in Application U/S 482 No. 29736 of 2023, the said vehicle namely Honda Aerva having registration No. UP 78 ER 5766 has been transferred by the busbundo the wife. 2) That Divya Pal @ Sonam Pal (wife) moved withdrawal application in Case No. 892 of 2023 u/s 125(3) of Cr.P.C. and produced the certiied copy of the same, which is annexed in the connected case Application U/S 482 No. 29736 of 2023 (M.C. No. 4320/2023). That Divya Pal Sonam Pal (wife) shall move withdrawal application in Case Crime No. 397/2019 (Divya Pal @Sonam Pal Vs. Chandra Pal) filed u/s 376, 354, 506, 507 IPC, P.S.-Govindpur, Kanpur Nagar, pending before A.C.J (J.D.)-09. Kanpur Nagar within three months. That it has also been agreed between the parties that all civil and criminal cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned. 1) That the parties will not file any fresh case against each other in respect of this matrimonial dispute. They have no claim against each other in future also.

1. That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legai recourse. By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that the Application U/S 482 No. 42843 of 2023 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parnes hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation."

7. On the above premise, the learned counsel in aforementioned applications submit that since the parties have entered into a settlement agreement and have now decided to terminate the matrimonial relationship by initiating proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721, In the light of aforementioned judgement, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicants that compromise in matrimonial dispute between the parties has to be treated as an effective compromise so as to bring to an end all dispute between the parties. On the above conspectus, they therefore, contend that present applications are liable to be allowed.

8. Per contra, the learned Learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party- 1 contends has no objection to the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants in aforementioned applications. According to the learned A.G.A. the distpute between the parties is a purely private disptue and therefore he cannot have any objection in case the present application are allowed.

9. Mr. Aqueel Ahmad, the learned counsel for applicant- Chandrapal and 2 others in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.32122 of 2024 ( Chandrapal And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another), submits that applicant is husband of the wife i.e. first inforamnt opposite party-2 (herein), he submits that in view of settlement arrived at between the parties as noted hereinabove, the cause of action to pursue this application has now come to an end. He, therefore, submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the proceedings of criminal case giving rise to present criminal proceedings are also laible to be quashed by this Court.

10. Be that as it may, this Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court: i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 ii. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 Nikhil iii. Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of iv. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 v. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705 vi. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 vii. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 viii. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497 ix. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC x. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653 466 xi. Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721 xii. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 xiii. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350 xiv. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 xv. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290 xvi. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench) xvii. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570 xviii. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 xix. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 xx. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 xxi. (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 xxii. Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online 936. xxiii. State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021. xiv. Shatrughna Atmaram Patil and Another Vs. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary and Another, (2024) 4 SCC 458. xv. Suraj Singh Gujar and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2414. xvi. K. Bharti Devi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Another, (2024) 10 SCC 384. xvii. Ramji Lal Bairwa and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193. xviii. H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 38. wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) held that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Recently, Apex Court in Daxaben (supra) has held that no compromise can be made in matter under Section 306 IPC. In state of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman (Supra), Court has held that no compromise can be entertained in matters under the POCSO Act. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

10. Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the report, which read as under: "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

11. In Ramgopal and another (supra), Court has again reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraphs 18-19 of the report:- "18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.

19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

12. In State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra), the Apex Court held that mere mention of Section 307 IPC cannot be sole basis for not quashing the proceedings. Court has to examine whether the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence for framing of charge under Section 307 IPC. The Court is further required to examine the weapons used and nature of injury and whether injury has been inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body, the previous antecedents of accused and whether they are absconding and how the compromise was got entered into by the parties are relevant factors, which must be considered. The above observations can be clearly delineated from the recital occurring in paragraphs 11 to 18 of the aforementioned report.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2, upon perusal of record and in view of observations made by the Apex Court as noted herein above, this Court finds that there does not exist any legal impediment in accepting the compromise entered into by the parties. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused-applicants is remote and bleak. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal proceedings pending against accused-applicants. 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.

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

15. It is, accordingly, allowed.

16. The entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2024 (State Vs. Chandrapal and others), under Sections 376, 354 IPC, agaisnt applicant no.1 and under Section 504, 506 I.P.C. agaisnt applicant no.2 & 3 arising out of Case Crime No. 397 of 2019 Police Station- Govind Nagar, District-Kanpur Nagar now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C-41 (Crime Against Women) Kanpur Nagar are, hereby, quashed.

17. The parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Imtiyaz IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad