High Court · 2025

proceedings of Session Trial No. 2786/2024, arising out of FIR/ Case Crime No. 373/2023, under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506 & 406 IPC, Police Station- Gudamba, District- Lucknow, including charge-sheet dated 20.11.2023 and cognizance/ summoning order dated 09.02.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow, on the basis of compromise dated 28.02.2025 entered into between the parties.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 26.11.2022 in furtherance of an application filed under section 156(3) CrPC stating that she came in contact with the applicant through a social site in the year 2018, and when she met the applicant, he administered some intoxicating substances and made physical relations with her and thereafter promised to marry her. She stated that the applicant made her sign on document and took a loan of Rs.10,00000/- (Ten Lakh Rupees) from the bank and took the entire money.

4. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted that charge-sheet on 20.11.2023. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have entered into a compromise which was verified before the Public Notary on 28.02.2025 stating therein that the informant had got married to the applicant on

08.03.2022, their marriage got registered on the same day but due to temperamental differences, they could not live together. The informant had filed a suit under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and now she wants to withdraw the criminal proceedings instituted by her against the applicant. Compromise entered into between the parties have been placed on record as Annexure-7 to the application. The parties have confirmed the terms of the compromise. The opposite party No. 2 has filed a short counter affidavit accepting the fact of compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings against the applicants.

5. Sri Yugal Kishor Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 also supported the prayer for quashing of the proceedings against the applicant and does not have any objection, if the impugned proceedings are quashed against the applicants.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

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. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise, wherein it is stated that the informant had married the applicant and thereafter the marriage has been dissolved because of their temperamental differences and that the F.I.R. had been lodged because of ill advice of some persons, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

10. Accordingly, keeping in view that aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and proceedings of Session Trial No. 2786/2024, arising out of FIR/ Case Crime No. 373/2023, under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506 & 406 IPC, Police Station- Gudamba, District- Lucknow, including charge-sheet dated 20.11.2023 and cognizance/ summoning order dated 09.02.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow, are quashed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench