Allahabad High Court
Hirendra @ Sunil And Another vs State Of U.P. 3 Others on 9 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109161
Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18399 of 2024
Applicant :- Hirendra @ Sunil And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1, Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of summoning/cognizance order dated 16.01.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.50 of 2024 (State vs. Hirendra @ Sunil and another) in Case Crime No.519 of 2023 under Section 376, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act and Section 67A of I.T. Act against applicant no.1 and under Section 13/14 of POCSO Act as well as Section 67A of the I.T. Act against applicant no.2, P.S. Haldaur, District-Bijnor on the basis of compromise dated 13.05.2024 or to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case during pendency of the application.
3. In the instant matter, an F.I.R. was lodged by O.P. no.2 on 19.12.2023 under section 376, 506 I.P.C. , under section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act and Section 67-A of I.T. Act wherein it is alleged that the applicant no.1 has committed rape on the daughter of the informant in sugarcane field and video of the occurrence of rape was made viral by applicant no.2.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have compromised the matter and applicant no.1 has married the victim on 04.04.2024 at Arya Samaj Mandir and they have also got the marriage registered. He submitted that the marriage certificate has been filed as Annexure 7 to this application. He next submitted that after their marriage, the victim and the applicant are residing together. He next submits that O.P. no.2 did not want to pursue this matter anymore. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the applicants submits that once applicant no.1 has married the victim and also registered their marriage and both the parties are living together as husband and wife and they have entered into a compromise, which is verified by the court below, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant shall now stand washed off. On the above conspectus, learned counsel for the applicants submits that criminal prosecution of applicants is liable to be quashed as if the criminal prosecution of applicants is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has though initially opposed the present application on the premise that the victim was minor on the date of occurrence, therefore, subsequent developments, if any, will not wipe out the criminality committed by the applicants as suggested by the learned counsel for applicants, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in the instant matter. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage.
6. Heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It transpires from the record that in the light of marriage having taken place between the victim and the accused/applicant, more particularly, there marriage being registered, shows that the couple are leading a happy marital life. In the teeth of these facts, glaring enough they are, if the Court would shut its doors to the couple who are married, the entire proceeding would result in miscarriage of justice. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of accused/applicants.
8. On account of the facts as noted above, the chances of conviction of accused/applicants is now not only remote but also bleak in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. As such, in case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family comprising of accused/applicants and victim shall stand broken.
9. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana, 2024 Live Law (SC) 391 wherein the Court has held in para No.8 as under:
"8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principle for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise.
11. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned judgements is squarely applicable to the present case as applicant no.1 has solemnized marriage with the victim and compromise has also arrived at between the parties, which has been verified by the concerned trial court.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the applicant has married the victim and the parties have amicably settled their dispute before the trial court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed.
13. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and summoning/cognizance order dated 16.01.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.50 of 2024 (State vs. Hirendra @ Sunil and another) in Case Crime No.519 of 2023 under Section 376, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act and Section 67A of I.T. Act against applicant no.1 and under Section 13/14 of POCSO Act as well as Section 67A of the I.T. Act against applicant no.2, P.S. Haldaur, District-Bijnor is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2025
Manish Himwan
