Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88201 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42002 of 2024 Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.5, as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 96 of 2021, State v. Anoop Kumar, arising out of Case Crime No. 338 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), registered at Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi, pending before the Court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi, on the basis of a compromise between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR was lodged by the father of the victim, alleging forcible abduction and sexual assault. However, the victim is stated to be a major, and she voluntarily left her parental home and solemnized marriage with the applicant out of her own free will. It is further submitted that the applicant and victim are living together as husband and wife and they have been blessed with a child. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has categorically denied the allegations made in the FIR. In her statement, the victim has stated that she had gone with the applicant voluntarily and solemnized marriage, and no offence, as alleged, was committed by the applicant. It is contended that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding and familial pressure, and continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 have opposed the application but could not dispute the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or the factual aspects relating to the marital status and existence of a child. 5. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the material on record, particularly the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it appears that the victim, who is alleged to be a minor in the FIR, has herself refuted the prosecution version. She has consistently stated that the relationship was consensual and matrimonial in nature. 6. In view of the consistent stand of the victim and the fact that she is reportedly residing with the applicant as his legally wedded wife, and considering the birth of a child from the wedlock, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the case alive. Further, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, where it has been held that continuation of criminal proceedings in cases of personal disputes that have been amicably resolved can amount to abuse of the process of the court, this Court is inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. 7. In the above factual backdrop, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to unnecessary harassment and wastage of judicial time. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court finds it a fit case for exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 96 of 2021, titled State v. Anoop Kumar, arising out of Case Crime No. 338 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi, are hereby quashed. 9. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 A. Tripathi Vinod Diwakar,J. Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad