Deepankar Lahari vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9988 ALL

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9988 ALL
Judgement Date : 1 September, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Deepankar Lahari vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil ... on 1 September, 2025





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:51986
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7884 of 2024   
 
   Deepankar Lahari    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   The State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Sunil Dixit, Sunil Kumar Awasthi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Alok Kumar Mishra   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 14
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. On 21.08.2025, the following order was passed:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/ complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 B.N.S.S.) has been filed with the following prayer:-

"For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated in the petition/application duly supported by an affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet no. 222/2022 dated 11.04.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 891/2021, Under Section 376, 313, 323 & 506 IPC, Case No. 34880/2024, (State Versus Deepankar Lahari), relating to Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Hardoi and entire proceedings initiated thereof.

It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present petition the proceedings of Charge Sheet no. 222/2022 dated 11.04.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 891/2021, Under Section 376, 313, 323 & 506 IPC, Case No. 34880/2024, (State Versus Deepankar Lahari), relating to Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Hardoi, may kindly be stayed."

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that under some misconception the FIR was lodged. He added that after some period of time, the alleged victim performed marriage with someone else and has settled their marital life and there is a male child from her. Thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ opposite party no.2 has supported the version of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that now the alleged victim has settled her marital life and allowing further criminal proceeding where she has to depose her testimony, would create hurdle and thus, the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped.

5. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the law laid down in case of Madhukar & ors. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No.7212 of 2025, the applicant and the alleged victim/ opposite party no.2 are directed to remain present before this Court on 01.09.2025 at 02:15 P.M. so as their statement would be recorded.

6. Interim order, if any, granted earlier shall continue till the next date of listing. "

2. In compliance of the order, the opposite party no.2/ informant - Smt. Neelam is present before this Court and is identified by Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

3. On query being asked, she replied that under certain misconception, the FIR was lodged and now she has performed marriage with someone else and she is residing peacefully with one year male child and if the criminal proceeding is allowed, her marital life would be vanished.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that on the instance of others, the FIR was lodged and as is presently stated by the opposite party no.2/ informant, she has performed the marriage with someone else and allowing further criminal proceeding would subserve no purpose as the trial would not lead to the punishment.

5. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Madhukar & ors. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No.7212 of 2025 and has referred paragraph 7 of the judgment, which is quoted hereunder:-

"7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More Importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome"

6. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgment above said, and therefore, the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has supported the version of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the opposite party no.2 has performed the marriage with someone else and, therefore, she do not want to press the prosecution furthermore, so as to save her marital life. Thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped.

8. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the aforesaid contentions.

9. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, particularly the statement of the alleged victim/ opposite party no.2 and the ratio drawn in case of Madhukar (supra), the criminal proceeding of Case No. 34880 of 2024 (State Versus Deepankar Lahari), arising out of Case Crime No. 891 of 2021, under Sections 376, 313, 323 & 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi is hereby quashed.