[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Prince Raja Alias Prince Bundela vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 February, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:22439
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13101 of 2024
Prince Raja Alias Prince Bundela
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Pramod Kumar Tripathi, Vimal Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Sakshi Jaiswal
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bacchan Singh, Advocate, holding brief of learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved to quash the charge-sheet dated 24.07.2022, cognizance/ summoning order dated 12.08.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.330 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.74 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 I.P.C., 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s), 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Talbehat, District Lalitpur, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions/ Special Judge (POCSO Act).
3. Learned counsel for accused applicant appeared and submits that the FIR of enticement has been lodged by the father of victim against the accused/ applicant on 08.03.2022 alleging therein that accused applicant has enticed his daughter on 26.02.2022, on which date the daughter of informant went to computer tuition but did not return. He came to know that accused applicant has enticed his daughter and lodged the FIR, belatedly. He submits that the accused applicant and victim have married. The father of victim has entered into compromise. Hence, he seeks interference of this Court to quash the charge-sheet, summoning order and the proceedings of aforesaid case, inter alia, on the ground of compromise.
4. Sri Bachan Singh, appeared for opposite party no.2 (informant) and submits that there is a compromise entered into between the parties. The accused applicant and victim got married having children. He further submits that the compromise has been filed before the trial court and same is verified.
5. This Court by orders dated 30.04.2024 and 09.08.2024 sent the compromise for verification to the trial court. The order dated 30.04.2024 provides two weeks' further time to file compromise, which was extended by order dated 09.08.2024. The orders are extracted underneath:
"1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Bhardwaj,Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Sakshi Jaiswal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
3. Sri Abhishek Bhardwaj submits that vakalatnama of Ms. Sakshi Jaiswal has been filed in the office on 27.4.2024. The same is not on record. Office to trace out the same and place it on the record by the next date.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the parties have entered into compromise which is annexed as annexure no. 10 to the affidavit in support of present 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is argued that as such the present proceedings be quashed.
5. Looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicant shall file the said compromise within a period of two weeks from today before the court concerned who shall verify the same within three weeks thereafter and send his report to this Court.
6. Learned counsels for the parties shall be at liberty to file the order passed by the court concerned regarding verification of the compromise, if any, through a supplementary affidavit.
7. List on 22.5.2024.
8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in Special Trial No. 330/2022, Case Crime No. 74/2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 I.P.C., 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.-Talbehat, District Lalitpur, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Lalitpur.
...
"Order on Crl. Misc. (Time Extension) Application No.3 of 2024.
1. Heard Ms. Ritu Singh holding brief of Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Yadav holding brief of Ms. Sakshi Jaiswal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.
2. This is a time extension application supported by an affidavit with the prayer to extend the time as granted vide order dated 30.4.2024 for verification of the compromise.
3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the Stat have no objection to the said prayer.
4. Perused the said order.
5. The grounds mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the affidavit filed in support of time extension application for extension of time to comply with the order dated 30.4.2024 are found to be sufficient. Hence, two weeks further time is granted to the applicant to comply with the order dated 30.4.2024 passed by this Court subject to deposit of Rs.2,000/- by the applicant before the court concerned which may be utilized by the District Legal Service Committee. The other conditions in the order dated 30.4.2024 shall remain as they were directed for.
6. The present time extension application stands allowed.
7. Let the matter be listed on 3.10.2024.
8. Interim order, granted earlier, shall remain in currency till the next date of listing."
6. In pursuance to the above orders, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Lalitpur by letter dated 09.09.2024, sent to this Court, the verified compromise, which has been carried out by the trial court on 20.08.2024. The same is on record.
7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has admitted the factum of compromise and its verification between the parties and further submits that the accused/ applicant and victim are residing as husband and wife and opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case.
8. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the application.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Mafat Lal and another Vs. The State of Rajasthan (2022) 6 SCC 589 has quashed the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings of offence U/s 363, 366 I.P.C. considering the marriage of accused and victim.
10. Even in the cases of POCSO Act, the Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police (2022 SCC Online SC 1056) has set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused affirmed by the High Court in the matter of POCSO Act, considering that the accused and victim are living happily in their married life and held that "This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix".
11. There is no point in getting the trial continued, when the parties have buried their differences and the star witness would not support the prosecution case.
12. In view of above, the charge sheet, cognizance/ summoning order and the proceedings arose out of case crime number mentioned above, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the proceedings of trial is also quashed.
13. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
February 2, 2026
CS/-
