Allahabad High Court
Rahul Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 11 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39843
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5615 of 2025
Applicant :- Rahul Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh,Vishal Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Aditya Verma, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record. Counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 is taken on record.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.272/2025 arising out of the Case Crime No.283/2021 under Sections 376, 420, 506 IPC relating to Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow as well as charge-sheet dated 24.06.2021 and the summoning order dated 28.10.2021 on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.
3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 24.04.2021 against the applicant, his mother and Bua, alleging that the informant came in contact with the applicant about five years ago and he repetitively made physical relations under allurement of marrying her. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet on 24.06.2021 and the trial Court took cognizance of the offence on 28.10.2021.
4. Quashing of the proceedings have been sought on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement dated 29.06.2025, which has been annexed with the application and wherein the opposite party No.2 has stated that she had lodged the FIR upon being instigated by some persons but now she wants closure of the proceedings in view of her statement under Section recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in terms of the compromise.
5. In the statement of the opposite party No.2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had stated that the applicant was her boyfriend and there was a consensual relationship between them.
6. The medico-legal examination report did not contain any finding which may indicate use of force by the applicant.
7. The opposite party No.2 has filed a counter affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.
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. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it appears that there was a long consensual relationship running upto five years prior to lodging of the FIR; the opposite party No.2 was major since inception of the relationship; there is no allegation of use of force and no such finding in the medico-legal examination report of opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 has willingly entered in to a compromise agreeing for closure of the proceedings in terms of compromise, I am of the view that the present application deserves to be allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.272/2025 arising out of the Case Crime No.283/2021 under Sections 376, 420, 506 IPC relating to Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow as well as charge-sheet dated 24.06.2021 and the summoning order dated 28.10.2021 are quashed.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Order Date :- 11.7.2025
-Amit K-
