Allahabad High Court
Sooraj Chauhan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 4 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38075
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 469 of 2025
Applicant :- Sooraj Chauhan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikas Verma
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned AGA-I for the State, as well as Sri Vikas Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet no.01/2024 filed on 11.12.2024 in Case Crime No.0566 of 2024, under Sections 69 and 351(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act lodged at Police Station Mankapur, District Gonda, culminated into Sessions Trial No.230 of 2025 (State Vs. Sooraj Chauhan) on the ground of settlement.
3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 16.11.2024 stating that while the informant was aged 17 and a half years the applicant made physical relations under allurement of marrying her and thereafter he declined to marry her.
4. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet on 11.12.2024 and the trial Court took cognizance of the offence on 25.02.2025.
5. It has been stated in the application that after filing of the charge-sheet the parties got married on 18.01.2025. The informant has specifically stated in the compromise that she does not want the criminal proceedings instituted by her against the applicant to continue further.
6. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the applicant annexing therewith a copy of the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda, verifying the genuineness of the compromise between the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the payer for quashing of the impugned proceedings on the basis of compromise, stating that the opposite party no. 2 has married the applicant and she is living happily as wife of the applicant.
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. When we examine the facts of the present case in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it appearsthat a complaint had been filed alleging that the applicant made physical relations with the complainant under the allurement of marrying her and he subsequently denied to marry her and now the informant has stated that she had lodged the F.I.R. under some misconception, the applicant has married her on 18.01.2025 and now she does not want to pursue the proceedings. The continuance of the proceedings will not be in the interest of the applicant or even in the interest of the informant as well as it will not be in the interest of justice.
11. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and all the proceedings, arising out ofCase Crime No.0566 of 2024, under Sections 69 and 351(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act lodged at Police Station Mankapur, District Gonda, arehereby quashed.
Order Date :- 4.7.2025MVS/-
