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

1. Heard Sri Lal Bahadur Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Maya Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C/ 528 B.N.S.S., the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 29.09.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 172/2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pertaining to Police Station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar as well as entire criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 382 of 2020 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, on the ground that the parties have reached a settlement.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 12.07.2020, under Sections 363 & 366 IPC only against the applicant, his father and mother, stating that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter aged 17 years on 05.07.2020.

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

5. The medico legal examination report of the victim discloses her age to be about 17-18 years. A copy of the certificate of the registration of marriage between the applicant and the alleged victim issued by the Marriage Registration Officer Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar has been annexed with the application.

6. A compromise entered into between the informant and her mother on the one side and the applicant on the other side has been annexed with the application wherein it is stated that the alleged victim has married the applicant and is living happily with him and the parties want closure of the present proceedings.

7. The alleged victim as well as her mother (wife of the deceased informant) have filed their separate short counter affidavits admitting the factum of the compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.

8. 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."

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed and the impugned charge sheet dated 29.09.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 172/2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pertaining to Police Station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar as well as entire criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 382 of 2020 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Pradeep/- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Lal Bahadur Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Maya Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C/ 528 B.N.S.S., the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 29.09.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 172/2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pertaining to Police Station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar as well as entire criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 382 of 2020 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, on the ground that the parties have reached a settlement.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 12.07.2020, under Sections 363 & 366 IPC only against the applicant, his father and mother, stating that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter aged 17 years on 05.07.2020.

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

5. The medico legal examination report of the victim discloses her age to be about 17-18 years. A copy of the certificate of the registration of marriage between the applicant and the alleged victim issued by the Marriage Registration Officer Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar has been annexed with the application.

6. A compromise entered into between the informant and her mother on the one side and the applicant on the other side has been annexed with the application wherein it is stated that the alleged victim has married the applicant and is living happily with him and the parties want closure of the present proceedings.

7. The alleged victim as well as her mother (wife of the deceased informant) have filed their separate short counter affidavits admitting the factum of the compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.

8. 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."

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed and the impugned charge sheet dated 29.09.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 172/2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pertaining to Police Station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar as well as entire criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 382 of 2020 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Pradeep/- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench