Lalita And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1111 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Lalita And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 May, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83652-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6881 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Lalita And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

1. Heard Sri Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA-I for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the first information report dated 19.02.2025, registered as Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Sections 87 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Hayatnagar, District Sambhal and not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the said FIR.

3. While entertaining the writ petition on 11.04.2025 the Division Bench has accorded interim relief in favour of the petitioners. For ready reference the order dated 11.04.2025 is reproduced as under:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the first information report dated 19.02.2025 registered as Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Sections 87 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Hayatnagar, District Sambhal and not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the said FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the parties are major and they have solemnized marriage on 15.02.2025 and have also registered their marriage before SRO Office Sadar Second, District Moradabad on 20.02.2025. He further submits that during investigation section 37(2) and 64(1) of BNS, 2023 and section 3/4 POCSO Act have also been added. He further submits that both the petitioners are present in the Court and are identified by their counsel namely Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed, and in case no reprieve is accorded in the instant matter the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

4. The matter requires consideration.

5. Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of State-respondent nos.1 and 2. Issue notice to respondent no.3 returnable at an early date. Step may be taken within a week.

6. All the respondents are accorded fifteen days time to file counter-affidavit. The petitioners will have five days time thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

7. Put up this matter on 30.04.2025, as fresh.

8. In the meantime, Investigating Officer is directed to record the statement of petitioner no.1 under Section 180 BNSS and also produce the petitioner no.1 before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 183 BNSS within two weeks from today. In the event, the petitioner no.1 appears before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate within stipulated period, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall record her statement under Section 183 BNSS and also ensure her medical age determination and, thereafter, C.J.M. concerned would submit report on or before the date fixed in the matter.

9. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Sections 87 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Hayatnagar, District Sambhal."

4. In response to the aforesaid order the detailed counter affidavit and affidavit of compliance have been filed by learned AGA for the Stare-respondents, bringing on record the ossification test report of victim and the statement of the victim under sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. As per the ossification test report the victim is aged about 19 years and as per the statement of the victim, which has been recorded under section 183 B.N.S.S. she has categorically stated that she is an illiterate and is aged about 18 years and went with Naresh/petitioner no.2 on her own will and has already married him. She further stated that neither she was pressurized by Naresh nor any wrong has been committed against her. She also stated that her parents wanted her to marry an older man and this is the reason she eloped with Naresh and married him.

5. Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA-1 for the State-respondents states that he has no objection in case the impugned FIR is quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the parties, in one voice, have submitted that the dispute arose from a personal misunderstanding and has since been resolved amicably. It is their collective submission that the continuation of criminal proceedings in such a scenario would serve no meaningful purpose and would, in fact, amount to misuse of the legal process. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, and the decision of this Court in Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8510 of 2022, decided on 16.09.2022).

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels, perused the pleadings, and examined the legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In Gian Singh (supra), the Supreme Court categorically held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not bound by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases, especially where the offence is private in nature and does not involve any element of public harm or societal concern.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that in cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, civil transactions, financial dealings, and other matters where the dispute is essentially personal and does not affect public interest, the Court should adopt a pragmatic and restorative approach, prioritizing reconciliation and restoration of peace over punitive proceedings. However, the Court also drew a clear line that such power should not be exercised in cases involving heinous offences or crimes with grave impact on society.

9. Moreover, the renowned Latin maxim Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium ? meaning "it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation" ? aptly underscores the necessity of finality in legal proceedings. This principle was emphatically upheld by this Court in Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P., reaffirming that precious judicial time and investigative resources must not be wasted on cases that have lost their adversarial essence and where the likelihood of conviction is minimal. It has been rightly emphasized that the justice delivery system should prioritize matters of substantive public importance rather than being mired in private disputes that no longer present any genuine grievance.

10. In view of the aforementioned facts, legal position, and the spirit of reconciliation demonstrated by the parties, this Court is of the firm view that the ends of justice would be met by quashing the proceedings, thereby preserving judicial resources and preventing unnecessary hardship to the parties.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The FIR dated 19.02.2025, registered as Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Sections 87 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Hayatnagar, District Sambhal and along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed.

12. The interim protection granted to the petitioners, vide earlier orders of this Court, stands confirmed.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

Order Date :- 19.5.2025

VKG