Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia vs Sambhajirao

this Court. The applicant has been identified by his counsel Shri S.Malik-e-Ashtar Rizvi, Advocate whereas opposite party no.2/victim has been identified by Shri Kumar Lakshay, Advocate.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/victim, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

4. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Charge sheet no. 01 of 2024, dated 05.06.2024 filed in case crime no. 0180/2024, under section 376, 406, 506 IPC & Section 67 of 1.T. Act, registered at Police Station- Safdarganj. District- Barabanki as well as summoning dated 20.09.2024, issued by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, Barabanki, on the basis of compromise dated 14.11.2024, contained as Annexure No.1 & 2 to this petition, in the interest of justice."

5. It is stated that applicant and opposite party no.2/victim were in affair and applicant for some difficulty could not solemnize marriage with opposite party no.2 and therefore being annoyed the opposite party no.2/victim lodged the FIR against the applicant and his mother -Sakira @ Shakira Bano and sister- Nasreen @ Nasreen Bano on 15.04.2024 at P.S. Safdarganj, District Barabanki which was registered as FIR No.0180 of 2024. Taking note of the allegations levelled, the same was registered under Sections 376, 406, 506 I.P.C. & Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

6. It is stated that a perusal of the contents of the FIR would indicate that on the assurance of solemnizing the marriage, the applicant, who was known to the victim for about two years, established physical relations and also duped Rs.2,00,000/- from the informant.

7. It is further stated that after lodging of the FIR, the marriage of victim and applicant was solemnized on 28.08.2024 and presently the applicant and victim are living happily as husband and wife under one roof.

8. It is also stated that 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 and being so the proceedings in issue are liable to be interfered by this Court.

9. It is further stated that taking note of the aforesaid averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.10476 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

21.11.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

10. Further submission is that it appears from the order dated

27.11.2024 (Annexure No.7) 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.

11. It is lastly stated that in view of the facts of the present case including the basic case set up in the FIR the proceedings in issue are liable to be quashed.

12. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations on the issue related to establishing physical relationship on assurance of marriage made 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) and as also the fact that the applicant and victim have now married each other, this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as 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 as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the matrimonial life of the applicant and opposite party no.2/victim would be ruined as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also 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, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.0180 of 2024, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

13. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

14. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

this Court. The applicant has been identified by his counsel Shri S.Malik-e-Ashtar Rizvi, Advocate whereas opposite party no.2/victim has been identified by Shri Kumar Lakshay, Advocate.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/victim, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

4. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Charge sheet no. 01 of 2024, dated 05.06.2024 filed in case crime no. 0180/2024, under section 376, 406, 506 IPC & Section 67 of 1.T. Act, registered at Police Station- Safdarganj. District- Barabanki as well as summoning dated 20.09.2024, issued by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, Barabanki, on the basis of compromise dated 14.11.2024, contained as Annexure No.1 & 2 to this petition, in the interest of justice."

5. It is stated that applicant and opposite party no.2/victim were in affair and applicant for some difficulty could not solemnize marriage with opposite party no.2 and therefore being annoyed the opposite party no.2/victim lodged the FIR against the applicant and his mother -Sakira @ Shakira Bano and sister- Nasreen @ Nasreen Bano on 15.04.2024 at P.S. Safdarganj, District Barabanki which was registered as FIR No.0180 of 2024. Taking note of the allegations levelled, the same was registered under Sections 376, 406, 506 I.P.C. & Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

6. It is stated that a perusal of the contents of the FIR would indicate that on the assurance of solemnizing the marriage, the applicant, who was known to the victim for about two years, established physical relations and also duped Rs.2,00,000/- from the informant.

7. It is further stated that after lodging of the FIR, the marriage of victim and applicant was solemnized on 28.08.2024 and presently the applicant and victim are living happily as husband and wife under one roof.

8. It is also stated that 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 and being so the proceedings in issue are liable to be interfered by this Court.

9. It is further stated that taking note of the aforesaid averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.10476 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

21.11.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

10. Further submission is that it appears from the order dated

27.11.2024 (Annexure No.7) 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.

11. It is lastly stated that in view of the facts of the present case including the basic case set up in the FIR the proceedings in issue are liable to be quashed.

12. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations on the issue related to establishing physical relationship on assurance of marriage made 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) and as also the fact that the applicant and victim have now married each other, this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as 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 as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the matrimonial life of the applicant and opposite party no.2/victim would be ruined as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also 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, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.0180 of 2024, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

13. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

14. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench