High Court · 2025

the aforesaid crime number on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement/compromise.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 11.09.2018 alleging that the applicant had enticed away his daughter aged 16 years (opposite party no. 3). She had taken away some jewellery and cash with her.

4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC, she stated that she is aged 21 years, she had gone away from her home out of her own free-will, she has married the applicant and has delivered a child out of the wedlock.

5. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she has stated that as per the educational record her date of birth is

06.07.2002. She stated that she knows the applicant since childhood and she has married him, has delivered a child and wants to live with her husband only.

6. The investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet on 01.07.2019 and the trial Court took cognizance of the offence on 11.07.2019.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have entered into a settlement with the applicant, stating that the opposite party no. 3 was adult at the time of the incident. She has married the applicant out of mutual consent and now three children have born out of the wedlock between the parties. The settlement states that no party wants any criminal proceeding to continue against the applicant.

8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 by opposite party no.2, accepting the averments made in the application and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. The learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has also supported the quashing of the proceeding.

9. In the case of Bahori Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Another 2024 SCC OnLine All 4596, this Court has examined the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1186, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531, Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030 and has culled out the following principles from the aforesaid judgments: "27. ....... the inherent powers of the High Courts recognized by Section 482 Cr. P.C. are wide and can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings, but the power has to be exercised judiciously and consciously. The High Courts can exercise their jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law is clearly made out. Such powers ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind the nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society; the seriousness of the injury,if any, the voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim, the conduct of the accused persons and the other relevant considerations. Though the Courts should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there is sufficient evidence which may lead to proving the charges. The High Court can quash the proceedings even in cases where the parties have entered into a settlement after conviction for a heinous offence carrying a maximum punishment for life. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast rule restricting the powers of the High Court to do substantial justice, as a restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may lead to grave injustice."

10. In the case of K. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, an FIR 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 was registered alleging that the appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, which amounted to committing rape. He was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence. In appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the allegation against the appellant was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, whereas he had in fact married the prosecutrix and they had two children and they were being taken care of by the appellant and she was leading a happy married life. 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. After taking into consideration these facts, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant in view of the subsequent events by observing that "This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix." However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also expressed that the order shall not be treated as a precedent.

11. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the FIR was lodged in the year 2019, the parties have married with mutual consent, the alleged victim has delivered three children out of the wedlock with the applicant, the parties have arrived at a settlement, as per the educational record the alleged victim was major at the time of the incident and subsequently the parties have arrived at a settlement wherein it is admitted that the victim was adult at the time of the alleged incident, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ASJ-4, Barabanki in C.T. No.93 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.0299/2018 lodged at Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki by means of which the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act as well as the impugned charge sheet no.205 of 2019 dated 01.07.2019 filed in the aforesaid crime number is quashed. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 MVS/- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

the aforesaid crime number on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement/compromise.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 11.09.2018 alleging that the applicant had enticed away his daughter aged 16 years (opposite party no. 3). She had taken away some jewellery and cash with her.

4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC, she stated that she is aged 21 years, she had gone away from her home out of her own free-will, she has married the applicant and has delivered a child out of the wedlock.

5. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she has stated that as per the educational record her date of birth is

06.07.2002. She stated that she knows the applicant since childhood and she has married him, has delivered a child and wants to live with her husband only.

6. The investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet on 01.07.2019 and the trial Court took cognizance of the offence on 11.07.2019.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have entered into a settlement with the applicant, stating that the opposite party no. 3 was adult at the time of the incident. She has married the applicant out of mutual consent and now three children have born out of the wedlock between the parties. The settlement states that no party wants any criminal proceeding to continue against the applicant.

8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 by opposite party no.2, accepting the averments made in the application and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. The learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has also supported the quashing of the proceeding.

9. In the case of Bahori Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Another 2024 SCC OnLine All 4596, this Court has examined the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1186, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531, Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030 and has culled out the following principles from the aforesaid judgments: "27. ....... the inherent powers of the High Courts recognized by Section 482 Cr. P.C. are wide and can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings, but the power has to be exercised judiciously and consciously. The High Courts can exercise their jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law is clearly made out. Such powers ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind the nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society; the seriousness of the injury,if any, the voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim, the conduct of the accused persons and the other relevant considerations. Though the Courts should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there is sufficient evidence which may lead to proving the charges. The High Court can quash the proceedings even in cases where the parties have entered into a settlement after conviction for a heinous offence carrying a maximum punishment for life. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast rule restricting the powers of the High Court to do substantial justice, as a restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may lead to grave injustice."

10. In the case of K. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, an FIR 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 was registered alleging that the appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, which amounted to committing rape. He was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence. In appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the allegation against the appellant was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, whereas he had in fact married the prosecutrix and they had two children and they were being taken care of by the appellant and she was leading a happy married life. 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. After taking into consideration these facts, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant in view of the subsequent events by observing that "This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix." However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also expressed that the order shall not be treated as a precedent.

11. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the FIR was lodged in the year 2019, the parties have married with mutual consent, the alleged victim has delivered three children out of the wedlock with the applicant, the parties have arrived at a settlement, as per the educational record the alleged victim was major at the time of the incident and subsequently the parties have arrived at a settlement wherein it is admitted that the victim was adult at the time of the alleged incident, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ASJ-4, Barabanki in C.T. No.93 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.0299/2018 lodged at Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki by means of which the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act as well as the impugned charge sheet no.205 of 2019 dated 01.07.2019 filed in the aforesaid crime number is quashed. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 MVS/- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench