In the case of Bahori Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Another

1. Heard Sri Basant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State, Sri Durgesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has prayed for quashing of impugned charge sheet dated 10.07.2019 as well as the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 106/2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 122/2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3, 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Satrikh, District Barabanki, pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Barabanki, on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise.

3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 01.05.2019 stating that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter aged about 17 years on 26.04.2019.

4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she has married the applicant out of her own free will and she wants to live with him.

5. The medico legal examination report of the victim reveals nothing significant. However, as per the ossification test report, age of the victim was about 17 years.

6. The trial court took cognizance of the offences by means of order dated 20.07.2019. The trial court recorded statements of the informant and the victim. The victim has been declared to be hostile as she has levelled no allegations against the applicant.

7. The settlement entered into between the complainant, victim and the applicant on 10.03.2025 has been annexed as Annexure No. A-11 to the application wherein it is recorded that the applicant has married the alleged victim, they are residing together as husband and wife and a son has born out of their wedlock who is at present three years old.

8. The opposite party no. 3-complainant has filed a short counter affidavit stating that her daughter is living with the applicant after marrying him.

9. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of the marriage registration certificate issued by the Marriage Registration Officer, Barabanki certifying that the applicant has married the daughter of the complainant on 01.03.2021.

10. 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."

11. 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.

12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, I am of the view that the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and proceedings of the impugned charge sheet dated 10.07.2019 as well as the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 106/2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 122/2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3, 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Satrikh, District Barabanki, pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Barabanki, are quashed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Pradeep/- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Basant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State, Sri Durgesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has prayed for quashing of impugned charge sheet dated 10.07.2019 as well as the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 106/2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 122/2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3, 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Satrikh, District Barabanki, pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Barabanki, on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise.

3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 01.05.2019 stating that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter aged about 17 years on 26.04.2019.

4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she has married the applicant out of her own free will and she wants to live with him.

5. The medico legal examination report of the victim reveals nothing significant. However, as per the ossification test report, age of the victim was about 17 years.

6. The trial court took cognizance of the offences by means of order dated 20.07.2019. The trial court recorded statements of the informant and the victim. The victim has been declared to be hostile as she has levelled no allegations against the applicant.

7. The settlement entered into between the complainant, victim and the applicant on 10.03.2025 has been annexed as Annexure No. A-11 to the application wherein it is recorded that the applicant has married the alleged victim, they are residing together as husband and wife and a son has born out of their wedlock who is at present three years old.

8. The opposite party no. 3-complainant has filed a short counter affidavit stating that her daughter is living with the applicant after marrying him.

9. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of the marriage registration certificate issued by the Marriage Registration Officer, Barabanki certifying that the applicant has married the daughter of the complainant on 01.03.2021.

10. 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."

11. 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.

12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, I am of the view that the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and proceedings of the impugned charge sheet dated 10.07.2019 as well as the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 106/2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 122/2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3, 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Satrikh, District Barabanki, pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Barabanki, are quashed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Pradeep/- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench