Allahabad High Court
Umesh Kumar Gaud Alias Umesh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 13 January, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2259
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11841 of 2024
Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Gaud Alias Umesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Pandey,Akhilesha Nand Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Kant
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Counter affidavit(s) filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2/victim and opposite party no.3/informant are taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for opposite party no(s).2 and 3, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed for the following main relief:-
"Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet as well as further criminal proceedings of Session Trail No 65/2018, arising out of Case Crime No.-166/2017, Under Section 366, 376, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Alapur, District - Ambedkar Nagar (State Vs Umesh) on the basis of the compromise pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court Ist Ambedkar Nagar.
It is also prayed that during the pendency of the instant petition under 482 Cr.P.C the further proceedings of the Session Trail No 65/2018, arising out of Case Crime No.166/2017, Under Section 366, 376, 506 1.P.C, Police Station Ambedkar Nagar (State Vs Umesh) pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court Ist Ambedkar Nagar may kindly stayed."
4. It is stated that a perusal of allegations levelled in the FIR lodged by the opposite party no.3, father of opposite party no.2/victim, would show that victim, aged about 18 years at the time of lodging of FIR i.e. on 14.11.2017, was enticed away by the applicant with the help of other persons.
5. It is further stated that the applicant was having affair with the victim/opposite party no.2 and due to same she has married to applicant on 12.08.2020, on her own volition, in Arya Samaj Mandir, Lucknow and accordingly 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 and being so the proceedings in issue are liable to be interfered by this Court.
6. It is further stated that since the victim has married to applicant on 12.08.2020 and they are living peacefully in their matrimonial life and, therefore, victim/opposite party no.2 does not want to continue with the pending criminal proceedings.
7. It is further stated that in fact the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.3 (father of victim) only to pressurize the applicant and other family members on the issue of solemnizing the marriage with the victim and during the pendency of pending criminal proceedings in issue the marriage of the applicant and victim was solemnized on 12.08.2020 and now the opposite party no.3/informant also does not want to continue with the case.
8. It is also stated that before the trial court the opposite party no.3/informant and opposite party no.2/victim as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively have not supported the prosecution case and the same is evident from the copy of the statement annexed as Annexure 9 to the present application.
9. Learned counsel for the side opposite based upon the averments made in the counter affidavit(s) and the statement(s) of opposite party no.2/victim and opposite party no.3/informant 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 age of the opposite party no.2/victim i.e. 18 years, at the time of lodging of FIR, as also the fact that the applicant and victim have now married each other, as also the statement of opposite party no.2/victim and opposite party no.3/informant 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 entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.166/2017, 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 :- 13.1.2025
Anand/-
