High Court · 2025

"For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1600 of 2023 "State Versus Shekh Mohd. Aleem" arising out of charge sheet No. A238 of 2023 dated 21.7.2023 in pursuance of Case Crime No. 271 of 2023 Under Section 366, 365, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/5 (i) Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020, Police Station-Kothi, District-Barabanki pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. Court No.36 District-Barabanki containing cognizance dated 7.8.2023 (contained in Annexure No.1 & 2 to this affidavit) in the light of compromise dated 30.07.2024 (contained in Annexure No.8 to this affidavit), in the interest of justice."

4. It is stated that an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 registered as FIR/Case Crime No.0271 of 2023 dated 05.07.2023 at P.S.- Kothi, District- Barabanki making allegations therein to attract the offence(s) under Section(s) 363, 366, 365, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C.

5. It is further stated that a perusal of allegations levelled in the FIR lodged by the opposite party no.2, father of opposite party no.3/victim, would show that victim, aged about 22 years at the time of lodging of FIR i.e. on 05.07.2023, was enticed away by the applicant with the help of co-accused.

6. It is also stated that it is apparent from the FIR in issue that on account of non-solemnization of the marriage the FIR was lodged against the applicant on 05.07.2023.

7. It is stated that the applicant and the opposite party no.3/victim, aged about 22 years at the time of lodging of FIR i.e. on

05.07.2023, were in affair and the opposite party no.2/informant and other family members of the opposite party no.3/victim were opposing this relationship and therefore to get this relationship broken the FIR, basis of pending criminal proceedings, was lodged and during investigation the opposite party no.3/victim was pressurized to level allegations against the applicant, which were levelled by the victim/opposite party no.3.

8. In continuation it is stated that the victim/opposite party no.3 has married to another person on 12.03.2024, which is evident from Annexure 7 to the petition, and she is living happily in her matrimonial life and therefore victim/opposite party no.3 does not want to continue with the pending criminal proceedings.

9. It is further stated that during the pendency of pending criminal proceedings against the applicant the better sense prevailed and parties settled the dispute and now the opposite party no. 3/victim does not want to continue with the case.

10. It is further stated that during the pendency of pending criminal proceedings against the applicant the better sense prevailed and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No.8 to the present application and according to the said compromise, the informant/opposite party no.2 as well as victim/opposite party no.3 does not want to continue with the criminal proceedings.

11. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter else entire matrimonial life of victim/opposite party no.3 would be ruined. Prayer is to allow the instant application.

12. The side opposite, based upon counter affidavit, could not dispute the aforesaid.

13. Upon consideration of the aforesaid including the age of the victim at the time of lodging the FIR was about 22 years, who according to FIR was enticed away by the applicant as also the contents of para(s) 4, 5, 10, 12 and 15 of the counter affidavit of opposite party no.2/informant, which supports the case of the applicant, this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court in view of the aforesaid including the nature of relationship between the applicant and the victim/opposite party no.3 as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the matrimonial life of victim/opposite party no.2 would be ruined 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 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, 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 in issue, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed in view of settlement.

14. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1600 of 2023 "State Versus Shekh Mohd. Aleem" arising out of charge sheet No. A238 of 2023 dated 21.7.2023 in pursuance of Case Crime No. 271 of 2023 Under Section 366, 365, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/5 (i) Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020, Police Station-Kothi, District-Barabanki pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. Court No.36 District-Barabanki containing cognizance dated 7.8.2023 (contained in Annexure No.1 & 2 to this affidavit) in the light of compromise dated 30.07.2024 (contained in Annexure No.8 to this affidavit), in the interest of justice."

4. It is stated that an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 registered as FIR/Case Crime No.0271 of 2023 dated 05.07.2023 at P.S.- Kothi, District- Barabanki making allegations therein to attract the offence(s) under Section(s) 363, 366, 365, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C.

5. It is further stated that a perusal of allegations levelled in the FIR lodged by the opposite party no.2, father of opposite party no.3/victim, would show that victim, aged about 22 years at the time of lodging of FIR i.e. on 05.07.2023, was enticed away by the applicant with the help of co-accused.

6. It is also stated that it is apparent from the FIR in issue that on account of non-solemnization of the marriage the FIR was lodged against the applicant on 05.07.2023.

7. It is stated that the applicant and the opposite party no.3/victim, aged about 22 years at the time of lodging of FIR i.e. on

05.07.2023, were in affair and the opposite party no.2/informant and other family members of the opposite party no.3/victim were opposing this relationship and therefore to get this relationship broken the FIR, basis of pending criminal proceedings, was lodged and during investigation the opposite party no.3/victim was pressurized to level allegations against the applicant, which were levelled by the victim/opposite party no.3.

8. In continuation it is stated that the victim/opposite party no.3 has married to another person on 12.03.2024, which is evident from Annexure 7 to the petition, and she is living happily in her matrimonial life and therefore victim/opposite party no.3 does not want to continue with the pending criminal proceedings.

9. It is further stated that during the pendency of pending criminal proceedings against the applicant the better sense prevailed and parties settled the dispute and now the opposite party no. 3/victim does not want to continue with the case.

10. It is further stated that during the pendency of pending criminal proceedings against the applicant the better sense prevailed and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No.8 to the present application and according to the said compromise, the informant/opposite party no.2 as well as victim/opposite party no.3 does not want to continue with the criminal proceedings.

11. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter else entire matrimonial life of victim/opposite party no.3 would be ruined. Prayer is to allow the instant application.

12. The side opposite, based upon counter affidavit, could not dispute the aforesaid.

13. Upon consideration of the aforesaid including the age of the victim at the time of lodging the FIR was about 22 years, who according to FIR was enticed away by the applicant as also the contents of para(s) 4, 5, 10, 12 and 15 of the counter affidavit of opposite party no.2/informant, which supports the case of the applicant, this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court in view of the aforesaid including the nature of relationship between the applicant and the victim/opposite party no.3 as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the matrimonial life of victim/opposite party no.2 would be ruined 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 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, 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 in issue, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed in view of settlement.

14. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench