Allahabad High Court
Aftab @ Md. Aftab And Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 9 January, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1660
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9095 of 2024
Applicant :- Aftab @ Md. Aftab And Anr.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gulam Rabbani
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the victim/opposite party no. 2.
3. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief:
"to quash/set-aside the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet dated 27.1.2024 arising out of Case Crime No.762/2023, (in respect of petitioner no.1 under sections-323, 506, 376 IPC and in respect of petitioner no.2 under sections 323, 506- IPC), Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur as well as summoning/cognizance order dated 27.2.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur in Criminal Case/S.T. No.643/2024 (State Versus Aftab & Another) as contained in Annexure No.1 & 2 respectively to this petition in terms of the verified compromise deed dated 15.7.2024 as well as its verification report/order dated 10.9.2024 prepared by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C (O.A.W), Sitapur in the interest of justice."
4. It is stated that a perusal of allegations levelled against the applicant no. 1 in the FIR by the opposite party no. 2, the victim, as also while making her statement in terms of Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it is apparent that on the pretext of false marriage, the applicant no. 1 established physical relations with the victim and accordingly the present case of the applicants 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 and being so the proceedings in issue are liable to be interfered by this Court.
5. It is further stated that in fact the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2/victim only to pressure the applicant no. 1 for solemnizing the marriage and during the pendency of pending criminal proceedings against the applicants the better sense prevailed and parties settled the dispute, which in fact was related to solemnizing the marriage, and now the opposite party no. 2/victim wants to marry another person and therefore, does not want to continue with the case.
6. It is also stated that the applicant no. 2 has been implicated being sister of the applicant no. 1, just to create pressure.
7. It is also stated that 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. 7 to the present application and according to the said compromise, the opposite party no. 2/victim do not want to continue with the criminal proceedings.
8. It is also stated that taking note of the aforesaid, this Court vide order dated 14.08.2024 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 7173 of 2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.
9. It appears from the order dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure No. 8) that the trial Court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.
10. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations on the issue related to establishing physical relationship on assurance of 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 age of the opposite party no. 2/victim i.e. 26 years, 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 future prospects of the opposite party no. 2/victim would be affected 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 entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 762 of 2023, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.
11. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
12. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 9.1.2025
Mohit Singh/-
