Allahabad High Court
Mandeep Yadav vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 22 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:58395
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7968 of 2025
Mandeep Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Brijesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, as well as Ms. Archana Yadav, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 by way of filing her Vakalatnama.
2. The instant application U/s 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.1211/2022 (State Vs. Mandeep Yadav), arising out of FIR No.0217/2022, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act lodged at Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi, pending in the court of learned Special Judge/POCSO Court No.12, Sultanpur and to quash the charge-sheet no.A-242 dated 17.10.2022 filed in the aforesaid FIR on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise/settlement.
3. Contention put-forth by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was lodged by mother of the alleged prosecutrix though there is no truthfulness in the same. He submits that in fact under some misconception the FIR was lodged and thereafter good sense prevailed and the mother, the alleged prosecutrix and the applicant sat together and entered into a settlement, which was executed vide the compromise deed. He argued that the applicant has performed marriage with the alleged prosecutrix and both are living as husband and wife. He further submits that now the alleged prosecutrix has settled her life with the applicant and if the impugned proceedings are allowed to go on against the applicant, she would again suffer with trauma.
4. He argued that the compromise deed was entered into between the parties on 04.06.2025 and thereafter an Application U/s 482 No.5387/2025 was moved before this Court and the compromise deed was referred to the trial Court for its verification and in compliance thereof the compromise deed has been verified between the parties by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Sultanpur vide order dated 14.07.2025, copy of which has been appended with the application.
5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., passed in Criminal Appeal No.001005/2025 and has referred paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8, which are extracted hereunder:
"4. Our attention was invited to the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages and Sub-Registrar, Varanasi which records that the marriage between the appellant and third respondent has been solemnized on 5th December, 2016. The date of birth of the third respondent ? victim is shown therein as 20th July, 1998. It is also brought on record that from the wedlock between the appellant and the third respondent, two children have been born whose documents have been produced along with Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.10906 of 2025.
6. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the third respondent in which she has accepted the fact that she is happily married to the appellant and they have been residing together. She has disclosed her date of birth as 20th July, 1998. In the record of the Primary School, as can be seen from document at Annexure 'P-1', the date of birth of the third respondent is shown as 20th July, 1998. Ossification test was conducted during the investigation. The report of the test is that on the date of commission of the offence, the age of the third respondent may be between 17 ½ years to 19 years. There are documents on record to show that the date of birth of the third respondent was 20th July, 1998. Therefore, when the offence was allegedly committed in September, 2016 she was already a major.
7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and their children.
8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the marriage certificate was placed on record before the High Court. In fact, no objection by the first informant is also recorded in the impugned order. Surprisingly, the High Court instead of entertaining the petition for quashing on the ground of settlement, has observed that the application for dropping criminal proceedings on the basis compromise may be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement and in fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by 3quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have been forced to come to this Court."
6. Referring the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of aforesaid judgment and, thus, the whole proceedings may be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the version of learned counsel for the applicant.
8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant but he has no objection if the parties have performed marriage.
9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
10. Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
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 instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.1211/2022 (State Vs. Mandeep Yadav), arising out of FIR No.0217/2022, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act lodged at Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi, pending in the court of learned Special Judge/POCSO Court No.12, Sultanpur, including the charge-sheet no.A-242 dated 17.10.2022, are hereby quashed.
12. The compromise deed shall be made part of this order.
13. Consign to record.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
September 22, 2025
MVS/-
