Prateek Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10714 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Prateek Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 September, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:165909
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33089 of 2025   
 
   Prateek Singh    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Mohd Kadim   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 79
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.      

- Heard Sri Mohd. Kadim, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and perused the record.

- In light of the proposed order, notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

- It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the first information report was lodged on 12.1.2024 stating that the applicant, who was working in Axis Bank in Bareilly as Relationship Manager, came in contact with the informant and they were in relationship and both of them wanted to get married. It is on this count that they had physical relations and also lived as husband and wife. She stated that the said physical relations were made against her will and on the promise to marry and when she asked the applicant to marry her he refused and threatened her and accordingly the aforesaid first information report was lodged.

- The applicant thereafter had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2604 of 2024 where interim protection was granted to the applicant by means of order dated 22.2.2024 which reads as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned AGA for State and perused the material on record.

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 12.1.2024 being Case Crime No. 0032 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)n, 506 IPC, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly, against the petitioners only and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

There is allegation against the petitioners, except petitioner no.2, of committing repeated offences of rape against respondent no.4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that FIR has been lodged only to compel the petitioner no.1 to marry respondent no.4. From the FIR itself it is clear that petitioner no.1 has promised the respondent no.4 of marriage, but he is going to marry some other girl.

The matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to the opposite party no.4, returnable at an early date.

Steps be taken within a week for service notice of respondent no.4.

All the respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks. The petitioners will have two weeks, thereafter, to file rejoinder affidavit.

List this case after six week before appropriate Bench.

Till the next date of listing or till the cognizance taken on the police report by the court below, whichever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be arrested pursuant to the impugned F.I.R., provided they cooperate with the investigation in question."

- Subsequently, opposite party No.2/informant appeared before this Court and filed a short counter affidavit wherein in paragraph 2 this Court was informed that the parties have arrived at a compromise and accordingly neither the deponent therein nor the applicant wanted to proceed further in the criminal case which may be decided in terms of the compromise dated 9.5.2024 which was annexed with the aforesaid affidavit. In the said compromise it has been stated that the parties have resolved the differences and they do not wish to proceed against each other. This Court in writ petition No.2604 of 2024 considered the said compromise and quashed the first information report dated 12.1.2024 by means of the judgment and order dated 28.5.2024 which is quoted as under:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A for the State and Ms. Afsana, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4 is taken on record.

2. The writ petition seeks quashing of First Information Report dated 12.01.2024, lodged as Case Crime No. 0032 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)n, 506 IPC, Police Station-Baheri, District-Bareilly.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court.

4. Learned counsel for victim/respondent no.4 submits that the aforesaid fact is correct and she has no objection in case the impugned F.I.R. is quashed.

5. Impugned F.I.R. dated 12.01.2024 is quashed.

6. The writ petition is allowed."

- Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the writ petition was allowed and the first information report itself was quashed vide order dated 28.5.2024 but prior to the said order on 11.3.2024 charge sheet was submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction and the trial court had also issued summoning order dated 1.7.2025 which was received by the applicant on 29.7.2025 and it is only then he came to know that the trial court has proceeded against the applicant.

- In the aforesaid circumstances, the present 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS application has been filed praying for quashing the charge-sheet No.123 of 2024 dated 11.3.2024 and also the cognizance order dated 1.7.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly and also the entire proceedings of case No.1325 of 2025 (State Vs. Prateek Singh) arising out of case crime No.32 of 2024, under Sections- 376 (2) (N), 506 IPC, police station Baheri, District Bareilly.

- This Court has considered the arguments of the petitioner and found that though the informant has supported the case of the prosecution on the basis of which the charge sheet was filed in the trial court but simultaneously in the writ petition preferred by the applicant the Court had passed an order protecting the applicant from arrest vide order dad 22.2.2024 in writ petition No.2604 of 2024. We further find that an agreement was arrived at between the informant and the applicant on 9.3.2025 which was filed before this Court through an affidavit which was sworn by the informant/opposite party No.2 and this Court relying upon the said compromise had quashed the first information report dated 12.1.2024.

- It has been submitted that when the Division Bench of this Court on the same facts has quashed the first information report then on the same grounds and facts the prosecution which has been initiated pursuant to the same FIR also deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, we find that there is no fresh fact which has come except the FIR which was duly considered by the division Bench and also quashed.

- This Court has also examined the entire facts and found that no fruitful purpose will be served by allowing the State to prosecute the applicant on the same facts which has already resulted in quashing of the FIR.

- In light of the above, the present application/petition is allowed. The proceedings of the charge-sheet No.123 of 2024 dated 11.3.2024, the cognizance order dated 1.7.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly and also the entire proceedings of case No.1325 of 2025 (State Vs. Prateek Singh) arising out of case crime No.32 of 2024, under Sections- 376 (2) (N), 506 IPC, police station Baheri, District Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

September 17, 2025

RKM.