State v. Pintu

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. Issue notice to respondent no.2 returnable at an early 2 A482 No. 3195 of 2021 date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegation in the FIR under pretext of marriage petitioner developed physical relationship with the prosecutrix and promised to marry her. However, later on he declined to marry her and thus FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix under Section 376, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. He submits that in fact the petitioner has not declined to marry. Thereafter, he has married the prosecutrix. The marriage photographs are on record so also the notary affidavit to the effect that both are married in Arya Samaj Mandir Lucknow has been annexed as Annexure-3,4 and 5 to the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement dated 1.3.2021 passed in the case of Sonu@ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2021. The relevant paragraph 11 reads as under:- "Bearing in mind the tests which have been enunciated in the above decision, we are of the view that even assuming that all the allegations in the FIR are correct for the purposes of considering the application for quashing under Section 482 of CrPC, no offence has been established. There is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to the second respondent was false at the inception. On the contrary, it would appear from the contents of the FIR that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant to marry the second respondent which gave registration of the FIR. On these facts, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in declining to entertain the petition under Section 482 of CrPC on 3 A482 No. 3195 of 2021 the basis that it was only the evidence at trial which would lead to a determination as to whether an offence was established.". Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. and peculiar facts of the case and also considering the law laid down by Apex court in Sonu@Subhash Kumar (supra), prima facie case for interim relief is made out. Till further orders of this court, the proceedings of Criminal Case No.0537 of 2021 pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act, Room No.12, District Sultanpur, shall remain stayed. Four weeks' time is allowed to learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit, two weeks' thereafter for rejoinder affidavit. List on 12.11.2021."

4. In deference to the aforesaid order dated 16.09.2021 learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit supported by charge sheet as well as the statements of the victim. In her statement the victim had clearly stated that she loves the applicant, after lodging of the F.I.R. the applicant and his parents get ready to marry her and now they have solemnized marriage in a temple and now they are living as husband and wife without any force and she does not want to proceed with the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per F.I.R. the applicant had established sexual relationship with the victim on the false pretext of marriage and after some time he had refused for the marriage, but after lodging of the FIR the applicant and the victim solemnized marriage in a temple on

06.10.2020, thereafter, the victim has also given a notary affidavit dated 23.10.2020 stating therein that they have solemnized marriage. As per the radiologial report the victim was found 18 years old at the time of her medical examination. Thus, it is evident that F.I.R. was lodged by the victim owing 4 A482 No. 3195 of 2021 to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that though the victim had solemnized marriage with the applicant but after some time she left the applicant and went away with some other person, which fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the informant/ victim, therefore, there was no criminal intent on the part of the applicant and that no criminal offence has been committed by him.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the victim-opposite party No. 2 do not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him and they have no objection, if the present proceedings pending against the applicant in the aforesaid case are quashed in the light of the Judgments of Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.

7. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (supra) has held that in case the dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between parties, notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that; "the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power 5 A482 No. 3195 of 2021 viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But criminal having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and 6 A482 No. 3195 of 2021 extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

8. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has also placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab : (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand : (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat : (2017) 9 SCC 641, and has submitted that since the applicant and the victim had solemnized marriage and they lived happily as husband and wife, though the victim left the applicant and went away with some other person after some time, thus, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

9. In such circumstances, it appears that the informant/ victim- opposite party No. 2, who would be the key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared their unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.

10. The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of the present case and other similar cases present 7 A482 No. 3195 of 2021 where, though allegations made in the FIR do contain ingredients of an offence. However, in view of such settlement having been reached, the chances of conviction are not only bleak but if such trials are allowed to continue along with all other trials that lie piled up in practically all criminal courts in the State, the continuance of trials in cases such as the instant case may only work to the huge disadvantage of other cases where litigants are crying for justice.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties and taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra), Yogendra Yadav (supra), Parbatbhai Aahir (supra) and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar (supra), the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, so far as it relates to the present applicant, are hereby quashed.

12. Accordingly, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. December 10, 2025 Mustaqeem (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. Issue notice to respondent no.2 returnable at an early 2 A482 No. 3195 of 2021 date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegation in the FIR under pretext of marriage petitioner developed physical relationship with the prosecutrix and promised to marry her. However, later on he declined to marry her and thus FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix under Section 376, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. He submits that in fact the petitioner has not declined to marry. Thereafter, he has married the prosecutrix. The marriage photographs are on record so also the notary affidavit to the effect that both are married in Arya Samaj Mandir Lucknow has been annexed as Annexure-3,4 and 5 to the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement dated 1.3.2021 passed in the case of Sonu@ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2021. The relevant paragraph 11 reads as under:- "Bearing in mind the tests which have been enunciated in the above decision, we are of the view that even assuming that all the allegations in the FIR are correct for the purposes of considering the application for quashing under Section 482 of CrPC, no offence has been established. There is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to the second respondent was false at the inception. On the contrary, it would appear from the contents of the FIR that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant to marry the second respondent which gave registration of the FIR. On these facts, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in declining to entertain the petition under Section 482 of CrPC on 3 A482 No. 3195 of 2021 the basis that it was only the evidence at trial which would lead to a determination as to whether an offence was established.". Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. and peculiar facts of the case and also considering the law laid down by Apex court in Sonu@Subhash Kumar (supra), prima facie case for interim relief is made out. Till further orders of this court, the proceedings of Criminal Case No.0537 of 2021 pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act, Room No.12, District Sultanpur, shall remain stayed. Four weeks' time is allowed to learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit, two weeks' thereafter for rejoinder affidavit. List on 12.11.2021."

4. In deference to the aforesaid order dated 16.09.2021 learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit supported by charge sheet as well as the statements of the victim. In her statement the victim had clearly stated that she loves the applicant, after lodging of the F.I.R. the applicant and his parents get ready to marry her and now they have solemnized marriage in a temple and now they are living as husband and wife without any force and she does not want to proceed with the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per F.I.R. the applicant had established sexual relationship with the victim on the false pretext of marriage and after some time he had refused for the marriage, but after lodging of the FIR the applicant and the victim solemnized marriage in a temple on

06.10.2020, thereafter, the victim has also given a notary affidavit dated 23.10.2020 stating therein that they have solemnized marriage. As per the radiologial report the victim was found 18 years old at the time of her medical examination. Thus, it is evident that F.I.R. was lodged by the victim owing 4 A482 No. 3195 of 2021 to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that though the victim had solemnized marriage with the applicant but after some time she left the applicant and went away with some other person, which fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the informant/ victim, therefore, there was no criminal intent on the part of the applicant and that no criminal offence has been committed by him.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the victim-opposite party No. 2 do not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him and they have no objection, if the present proceedings pending against the applicant in the aforesaid case are quashed in the light of the Judgments of Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.

7. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (supra) has held that in case the dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between parties, notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that; "the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power 5 A482 No. 3195 of 2021 viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But criminal having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and 6 A482 No. 3195 of 2021 extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

8. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has also placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab : (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand : (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat : (2017) 9 SCC 641, and has submitted that since the applicant and the victim had solemnized marriage and they lived happily as husband and wife, though the victim left the applicant and went away with some other person after some time, thus, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

9. In such circumstances, it appears that the informant/ victim- opposite party No. 2, who would be the key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared their unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.

10. The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of the present case and other similar cases present 7 A482 No. 3195 of 2021 where, though allegations made in the FIR do contain ingredients of an offence. However, in view of such settlement having been reached, the chances of conviction are not only bleak but if such trials are allowed to continue along with all other trials that lie piled up in practically all criminal courts in the State, the continuance of trials in cases such as the instant case may only work to the huge disadvantage of other cases where litigants are crying for justice.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties and taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra), Yogendra Yadav (supra), Parbatbhai Aahir (supra) and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar (supra), the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, so far as it relates to the present applicant, are hereby quashed.

12. Accordingly, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. December 10, 2025 Mustaqeem (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench