High Court · 2025

1. The opposite party no. 3 (victim) is present before this Court, who has been identified by Shri Avanish Kumar Yadav, Advocate.

2. In view of facts of the instant case, issuance of notice to the private-opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3/victim.

4. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief: "to quash the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 215/2011 (State versus Bhanu Prasad Maurya) and to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 28.09.2011 filed U/S 368 IPC in Case Crime No. 348/2011, dated 04.06.2011 lodged U/S 363/366 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar which is pending before the learned Special Judge POCSO Act-I, Ambedkar Nagar against the applicant (contained as ANNEXURE NO. 1) in the interest of justice."

5. It is stated that a complaint was made by the opposite party no. 2 and based upon the said complaint, the FIR was lodged on 04.06.2011, registered as Case Crime No. 348 of 2011, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, PS- Kotwali Akbarpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar against Prabhakar S/o of the applicant and Sushil alias Shalu.

6. It is further stated that thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet no. 134A dated 04.06.2011 against the present applicant under Section 368 IPC and the charge- sheet no. 134B dated 21.06.2025 against co-accused Prabhakar alias Prabhakar Maurya, S/o of the applicant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.

7. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged only on account of the fact that the relationship of the opposite party no. 3/victim and the co-accused Prabhakar alias Prabhakr Maurya was not recognized by the opposite party no. 2 and other family members of opposite party no. 3/victim.

8. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 3/victim and co-accused Prabhakar alias Prabhakr Maurya solemnized marriage and out of this wedlock, both are having two children.

9. It is further submitted that taking note of the facts of the case, this Court, vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 8230 of 2023, quashed the criminal proceedings which were pending against co-accused Prabhakar alias Prabhakar Maurya S/o of the applicant. The order dated 20.09.2023 reads as under: "1. Sri Sooraj Lal, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge sheet No.134-B of 2021 dated 21.12.2021 in Criminal Case No.2192 of 2023 (State Vs. Prabhakar Mourya) arising out of F.I.R. No.348 of 2011 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar as well as impugned summoning order dated 23.01.2023 and bailable warrant dated 20.07.2023 issued by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar; for quashing entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.2192 of 2023.

4. On 04.09.2023 following order was passed:- "1. As it is reported that today lawyers are abstaining from judicial work.

2. On 21.8.2023, following order was passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Present application has been moved by the applicant for quashing the charge sheet dated 21.12.2021, in Criminal Case No.2192 of 2023, State Vs. Prabhakar Mourya arising out of F.I.R. No.348 of 2011, under Sections 363/366/376 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent no.3 was in affair with the applicant and she was willing to enter into the marriage with him but respondent no.2 was against her will, and thereafter, respondent no.3 left her home and came to the applicant and later on, both of them went to Mumbai and entered into the marriage and started enjoying their matrimonial life and due to annoyance, respondent no.2 lodged the F.I.R. in question. He further submitted that respondent no.3 is having two children aged about 11 years and 3 years from her wedlock with the applicant. He further submitted that charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer in the year of 2012 for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. but no alleged offences are made out, therefore kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of applicant and submitted that at the time of alleged incident, respondent no.3 was aged about 16.5 years but he does not dispute this fact that as per the medico-legal report, her age was determined as 17.5 years.

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of application, as well as other relevant documents, as it is evident that applicant and respondent no.3 are enjoying their matrimonial life and they are having two children aged about 11 years and 3 years from their wedlock, therefore, matter requires consideration.

6. List this Case on 04.09.2023.

7. Issue notice to private respondents returnable at an early date.

8. On the next date, applicant as well as private respondents shall be present before this Court.

9. Station House Officer, P.S. Akbarpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar shall ensure the presence of private respondent no.2 namely, Ashumati Devi, W/o Shri Harishchandra R/o Lorpur Tajan, P.S.- Kotwali Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar before this Court on the next date of listing.

10. Impugned proceedings shall remain stayed till further order."

3. List this case on 20.9.2023.

4. On the next date, parties shall appear before this Court in compliance of order dated 21.8.2023.

5. Interim order granted earlier shall continue till the next date of listing."

5. On the basis of report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar dated 04.09.2023, notice upon respondent no.2- Smt. Aashumati Devi, w/o Sri Harishchandra r/o Lorpur Tajan, Police Station- Kotwali Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, has already been served. But she does not appear before this Court today.

6. In pursuance of aforesaid order, applicant and respondent no.3 are present today along with their two children. They have been duly identified by Mr. Sooraj Lal, Advocate.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and respondent no.3 are enjoying their matrimonial life, presently, they have two children out of their wedlock, hence, there is no possibility of any conviction. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

8. As it is evident from the record that victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. as well as 164 Cr.P.C. Victim concedes this fact that she has two children and now she is enjoying her matrimonial life with applicant so she does not want to prosecute him.

9. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of applicant but he does not dispute this fact that victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement.

10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of application as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that applicant and victim are enjoying their matrimonial life, they have two children out of their wedlock i.e. one daughter aged about 09 years & one son aged about 09 months. In such circumstances, the prosecution of case in question is futile and the impugned proceeding may be quashed.

11. With aforesaid observations, the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the aforesaid impugned proceeding is hereby quashed.

12. Office is directed to communicate this order to trial court forthwith."

10. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid background of the case as also taking note of the fact that the applicant was implicated for being father of the co-accused Prabhakar alias Prabhar Maurya, indulgence of this Court is required.

11. The opposite party no. 3/victim, before this Court, supports the story of the applicant.

12. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the fact that the proceedings against co-accused Prabhakar alias Prabhakar Maurya has already been quashed by this Court, vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 8230 of 2023, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, 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, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also taking note of the nature of dispute/crime and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of opposite party no. 3/victim and the son of the applicant would be affected and further, that in the given facts of the case chances of conviction are extremely bleak, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. 348 of 2011, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

13. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

14. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. The opposite party no. 3 (victim) is present before this Court, who has been identified by Shri Avanish Kumar Yadav, Advocate.

2. In view of facts of the instant case, issuance of notice to the private-opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3/victim.

4. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief: "to quash the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 215/2011 (State versus Bhanu Prasad Maurya) and to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 28.09.2011 filed U/S 368 IPC in Case Crime No. 348/2011, dated 04.06.2011 lodged U/S 363/366 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar which is pending before the learned Special Judge POCSO Act-I, Ambedkar Nagar against the applicant (contained as ANNEXURE NO. 1) in the interest of justice."

5. It is stated that a complaint was made by the opposite party no. 2 and based upon the said complaint, the FIR was lodged on 04.06.2011, registered as Case Crime No. 348 of 2011, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, PS- Kotwali Akbarpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar against Prabhakar S/o of the applicant and Sushil alias Shalu.

6. It is further stated that thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet no. 134A dated 04.06.2011 against the present applicant under Section 368 IPC and the charge- sheet no. 134B dated 21.06.2025 against co-accused Prabhakar alias Prabhakar Maurya, S/o of the applicant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.

7. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged only on account of the fact that the relationship of the opposite party no. 3/victim and the co-accused Prabhakar alias Prabhakr Maurya was not recognized by the opposite party no. 2 and other family members of opposite party no. 3/victim.

8. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 3/victim and co-accused Prabhakar alias Prabhakr Maurya solemnized marriage and out of this wedlock, both are having two children.

9. It is further submitted that taking note of the facts of the case, this Court, vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 8230 of 2023, quashed the criminal proceedings which were pending against co-accused Prabhakar alias Prabhakar Maurya S/o of the applicant. The order dated 20.09.2023 reads as under: "1. Sri Sooraj Lal, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge sheet No.134-B of 2021 dated 21.12.2021 in Criminal Case No.2192 of 2023 (State Vs. Prabhakar Mourya) arising out of F.I.R. No.348 of 2011 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar as well as impugned summoning order dated 23.01.2023 and bailable warrant dated 20.07.2023 issued by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar; for quashing entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.2192 of 2023.

4. On 04.09.2023 following order was passed:- "1. As it is reported that today lawyers are abstaining from judicial work.

2. On 21.8.2023, following order was passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Present application has been moved by the applicant for quashing the charge sheet dated 21.12.2021, in Criminal Case No.2192 of 2023, State Vs. Prabhakar Mourya arising out of F.I.R. No.348 of 2011, under Sections 363/366/376 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent no.3 was in affair with the applicant and she was willing to enter into the marriage with him but respondent no.2 was against her will, and thereafter, respondent no.3 left her home and came to the applicant and later on, both of them went to Mumbai and entered into the marriage and started enjoying their matrimonial life and due to annoyance, respondent no.2 lodged the F.I.R. in question. He further submitted that respondent no.3 is having two children aged about 11 years and 3 years from her wedlock with the applicant. He further submitted that charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer in the year of 2012 for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. but no alleged offences are made out, therefore kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of applicant and submitted that at the time of alleged incident, respondent no.3 was aged about 16.5 years but he does not dispute this fact that as per the medico-legal report, her age was determined as 17.5 years.

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of application, as well as other relevant documents, as it is evident that applicant and respondent no.3 are enjoying their matrimonial life and they are having two children aged about 11 years and 3 years from their wedlock, therefore, matter requires consideration.

6. List this Case on 04.09.2023.

7. Issue notice to private respondents returnable at an early date.

8. On the next date, applicant as well as private respondents shall be present before this Court.

9. Station House Officer, P.S. Akbarpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar shall ensure the presence of private respondent no.2 namely, Ashumati Devi, W/o Shri Harishchandra R/o Lorpur Tajan, P.S.- Kotwali Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar before this Court on the next date of listing.

10. Impugned proceedings shall remain stayed till further order."

3. List this case on 20.9.2023.

4. On the next date, parties shall appear before this Court in compliance of order dated 21.8.2023.

5. Interim order granted earlier shall continue till the next date of listing."

5. On the basis of report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar dated 04.09.2023, notice upon respondent no.2- Smt. Aashumati Devi, w/o Sri Harishchandra r/o Lorpur Tajan, Police Station- Kotwali Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, has already been served. But she does not appear before this Court today.

6. In pursuance of aforesaid order, applicant and respondent no.3 are present today along with their two children. They have been duly identified by Mr. Sooraj Lal, Advocate.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and respondent no.3 are enjoying their matrimonial life, presently, they have two children out of their wedlock, hence, there is no possibility of any conviction. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

8. As it is evident from the record that victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. as well as 164 Cr.P.C. Victim concedes this fact that she has two children and now she is enjoying her matrimonial life with applicant so she does not want to prosecute him.

9. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of applicant but he does not dispute this fact that victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement.

10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of application as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that applicant and victim are enjoying their matrimonial life, they have two children out of their wedlock i.e. one daughter aged about 09 years & one son aged about 09 months. In such circumstances, the prosecution of case in question is futile and the impugned proceeding may be quashed.

11. With aforesaid observations, the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the aforesaid impugned proceeding is hereby quashed.

12. Office is directed to communicate this order to trial court forthwith."

10. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid background of the case as also taking note of the fact that the applicant was implicated for being father of the co-accused Prabhakar alias Prabhar Maurya, indulgence of this Court is required.

11. The opposite party no. 3/victim, before this Court, supports the story of the applicant.

12. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the fact that the proceedings against co-accused Prabhakar alias Prabhakar Maurya has already been quashed by this Court, vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 8230 of 2023, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, 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, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also taking note of the nature of dispute/crime and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of opposite party no. 3/victim and the son of the applicant would be affected and further, that in the given facts of the case chances of conviction are extremely bleak, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. 348 of 2011, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

13. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

14. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench