Chandrojirao vs Court is of the view that entire criminal proceedings arising out of

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s), learned AGA for the State of U.P., Shri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the private opposite party No. 2 and gone through the record.

3. The present application has been filed by the applicants for the following main relief:- "To set aside the summoning order dated 05/12/2022 passed by II Add. Civil Judge (J.D.)/ J.M. Ambdekarnagar and the charge sheet no.1 dated 16/10/2022 and to set aside the proceeding of criminal case no. 1333/2022 (State V/s Akash Pandey and Anr.) in connection with case crime no. 163/2022 U/s 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkarnagar."

4. Applicant No.1/ Akash Pandey and opposite party No.2/ victim are present before this Court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsels.

5. It is stated that a conjoint reading of the FIR, the basis of pending criminal proceedings registered as Case Crime No. 0163 of 2022, under Sections 376/ 313/ 323/ 504/ 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkarnagar 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/ 313/ 323/ 504/ 506 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 Dileep 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 2 to 7 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. "2. That the deponent/complainant/ opposite party no. 2 and the petitioners, belongs to the same village and are well known to each other but on the instigation of some other persons, the complainant has lodged the FIR against petitioners and also recorded her statement U/s 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC resulting the present proceeding has been initiated.

3. That now due to intervention of some relatives and family members of the petitioners and opposite party no. 2, they are now not in any dispute and are looking forward to live their lives peacefully and better future the matter has been resolved, as such they have entered in to a compromise. Furthermore, during the pendency of the trial Court, the deponent/opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner no. 1 are now married, separately, and are living happily in their lives, as such they do not want to pursue the present criminal proceeding.

4. That in fact no physical relationship was made between the petitioner no. 1 and the complainant opposite party no. 2 or abortion of the complainant was conducted but such sort of allegation has been made in furious and on the instigation of some other persons who were having enmity behind them.

5. That the petitioner no. 2 has never threatened the deponent but due to some misunderstanding his name was brought in the present litigation.

6. That the deponent opposite party no. 2 has not taken any money either personally from the petitioners or received any compensation from the state government under the provisions of Section 376 IPC.

7. That the deponent is praying to this Hon'ble Court that the present criminal proc proceeding arising out of case crime no. 0163/ 2022 U/s 376, 313,323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkarnagar, pending before the Trial Court concerned may kindly be set aside.."

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 No.1 and the opposite party no. 2/victim, now separately 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. 163 of 2022, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

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 :- 28.1.2025 G. Singh/ Anand ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s), learned AGA for the State of U.P., Shri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the private opposite party No. 2 and gone through the record.

3. The present application has been filed by the applicants for the following main relief:- "To set aside the summoning order dated 05/12/2022 passed by II Add. Civil Judge (J.D.)/ J.M. Ambdekarnagar and the charge sheet no.1 dated 16/10/2022 and to set aside the proceeding of criminal case no. 1333/2022 (State V/s Akash Pandey and Anr.) in connection with case crime no. 163/2022 U/s 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkarnagar."

4. Applicant No.1/ Akash Pandey and opposite party No.2/ victim are present before this Court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsels.

5. It is stated that a conjoint reading of the FIR, the basis of pending criminal proceedings registered as Case Crime No. 0163 of 2022, under Sections 376/ 313/ 323/ 504/ 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkarnagar 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/ 313/ 323/ 504/ 506 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 Dileep 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 2 to 7 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. "2. That the deponent/complainant/ opposite party no. 2 and the petitioners, belongs to the same village and are well known to each other but on the instigation of some other persons, the complainant has lodged the FIR against petitioners and also recorded her statement U/s 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC resulting the present proceeding has been initiated.

3. That now due to intervention of some relatives and family members of the petitioners and opposite party no. 2, they are now not in any dispute and are looking forward to live their lives peacefully and better future the matter has been resolved, as such they have entered in to a compromise. Furthermore, during the pendency of the trial Court, the deponent/opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner no. 1 are now married, separately, and are living happily in their lives, as such they do not want to pursue the present criminal proceeding.

4. That in fact no physical relationship was made between the petitioner no. 1 and the complainant opposite party no. 2 or abortion of the complainant was conducted but such sort of allegation has been made in furious and on the instigation of some other persons who were having enmity behind them.

5. That the petitioner no. 2 has never threatened the deponent but due to some misunderstanding his name was brought in the present litigation.

6. That the deponent opposite party no. 2 has not taken any money either personally from the petitioners or received any compensation from the state government under the provisions of Section 376 IPC.

7. That the deponent is praying to this Hon'ble Court that the present criminal proc proceeding arising out of case crime no. 0163/ 2022 U/s 376, 313,323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkarnagar, pending before the Trial Court concerned may kindly be set aside.."

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 No.1 and the opposite party no. 2/victim, now separately 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. 163 of 2022, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

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 :- 28.1.2025 G. Singh/ Anand ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench