Allahabad High Court
Sugreem Nishad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 5 February, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7507
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 823 of 2025
Applicant :- Sugreem Nishad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Niyaj Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Shri Nijam Ahmad, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by way of filing his Vakalatnama as also the short counter affidavit, which are taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. The present application has been filed by the applicants for the following main relief:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.516 of 2024; State Versus Sugreem, arising out of Case Crime No.218 of 2024, under sections-376, 506 I.P.C., relating to the Police Station-Jalalpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Ambedkar Nagar, as well as impugned chargesheet no.191/2024, dated 25.7.2024, submitted by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner in aforesaid case crime number, as contained in Annexure no.1 to this petition, in the interest of law and justice."
4. Applicant and victim/opposite party no.2 are present before this Court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsel.
5. It is stated that a conjoint reading of the FIR, the basis of pending criminal proceedings, registered as FIR/Case Crime No.0218 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Jalalpur, District -Ambedkar Nagar and the statement of the victim/opposite party no.2 recorded by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 180 BNSS, 2023 and thereafter the statement of the victim/opposite party no.2 recorded in terms of Section 183 BNSS, 2023 would show that the applicant was well known to the victim/opposite party no.2 and if the allegations related to making physical relations made by the victim/opposite party no.2 are taken on its face value then in that eventuality the said relations were made by the applicant on the pretext of false marriage, though were not correct, and in this view of the matter, the present case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181; Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032.
6. It is also stated that on account of some dispute the marriage of the applicant with victim/opposite party no.2 could not be solemnized and therefore the FIR was lodged by the victim/opposite party no.2 making allegations to attract offence under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C.
7. It is also stated that during the pendency of the case before the trial Court said dispute between the parties at the instance of some relatives of the applicant and the victim/opposite party no.2 has been resolved.
8. It is further stated that the victim/opposite party no.2 has married to applicant on 29.11.2024, as is evident from Annexure No.8, which is certificate of registration of marriage, and both are living peacefully in their matrimonial life and, therefore, victim does not want to continue with the pending criminal proceedings.
9. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2/victim based upon the averments made in the counter affidavit(s) and the statement(s) of opposite party no.2/victim stated that the proceedings in issue may be quashed.
10. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations on the issue related to establishing physical relationship on assurance of solemnizing marriage made in the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar (supra); Deepak Gulati (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar (supra) and also the fact that the applicant and victim/opposite party no.2 have now married each other, as also the statement of opposite party no.2/victim before the trial court 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 opposite party no.2/victim as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the matrimonial life of the applicant and opposite party no.2/victim would be affected/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.
11. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 5.2.2025
Anand/-
