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

Applicant :- Usman Alias Usman Ali And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Taufeeq Ahmad,Krishna Mohan Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurudh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

1. Heard Sri Taufeeq Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I, Sri Anurudh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 24.08.2022, charge sheet dated 25.09.2022 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1422 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 0479 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Masauli, District Barabanki, pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Room No. 44, Barabanki, on the ground of a settlement arrived at between the parties.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 24.08.2022 alleging that the applicant No. 1 had raped the opposite party no. 3 on 09.08.2022. The allegation of commission of rape was not supported by the findings of the medico legal examination report.

4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicants annexing therewith a copy of compromise entered into between the opposite party no. 3 and the applicants on 21.02.2024 wherein it is stated that the opposite party no. 3 has married Usman alias Usman Ali (applicant no. 1) on 12.02.2024. The said compromise had been filed in the Court of Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No. 44, Barabanki.

5. Sri Anurudh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 has accepted the factum of the compromise and has supported the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.

6. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that when the alleged victim (opposite party no. 3) has married the applicant no. 1, continuance of criminal proceeding against the applicants will result in persecution of the applicants as well as the opposite party no. 3, who is alleged victim of the offences.

7. 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."

8. 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.

9. When we examine the facts of the present case in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it appears that a complaint has been filed alleging that the applicant made physical relations with the complainant under the allurement of marrying her and he subsequently denied to marry her and now the informant has stated that she had lodged the F.I.R. under some misconception and the parties have got married to other persons and they are living happily with their respective spouses and the informant does not want to pursue the proceedings. The continuance of the proceedings will not be in the interest of the applicant or even in the interest of the informant as well as it will not be in the interest of justice.

10. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the the FIR dated 24.08.2022, charge sheet dated 25.09.2022 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1422 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 0479 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Masauli, District Barabanki, pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Room No. 44, Barabanki, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Pradeep/- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Usman Alias Usman Ali And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Taufeeq Ahmad,Krishna Mohan Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurudh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

1. Heard Sri Taufeeq Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I, Sri Anurudh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 24.08.2022, charge sheet dated 25.09.2022 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1422 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 0479 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Masauli, District Barabanki, pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Room No. 44, Barabanki, on the ground of a settlement arrived at between the parties.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 24.08.2022 alleging that the applicant No. 1 had raped the opposite party no. 3 on 09.08.2022. The allegation of commission of rape was not supported by the findings of the medico legal examination report.

4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicants annexing therewith a copy of compromise entered into between the opposite party no. 3 and the applicants on 21.02.2024 wherein it is stated that the opposite party no. 3 has married Usman alias Usman Ali (applicant no. 1) on 12.02.2024. The said compromise had been filed in the Court of Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No. 44, Barabanki.

5. Sri Anurudh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 has accepted the factum of the compromise and has supported the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.

6. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that when the alleged victim (opposite party no. 3) has married the applicant no. 1, continuance of criminal proceeding against the applicants will result in persecution of the applicants as well as the opposite party no. 3, who is alleged victim of the offences.

7. 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."

8. 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.

9. When we examine the facts of the present case in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it appears that a complaint has been filed alleging that the applicant made physical relations with the complainant under the allurement of marrying her and he subsequently denied to marry her and now the informant has stated that she had lodged the F.I.R. under some misconception and the parties have got married to other persons and they are living happily with their respective spouses and the informant does not want to pursue the proceedings. The continuance of the proceedings will not be in the interest of the applicant or even in the interest of the informant as well as it will not be in the interest of justice.

10. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the the FIR dated 24.08.2022, charge sheet dated 25.09.2022 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1422 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 0479 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Masauli, District Barabanki, pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Room No. 44, Barabanki, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Pradeep/- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench