Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3186 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 269 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mewa Ram Satyarthi,Arvind Kumar Bhandari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Shri Virendra Vikram Singh, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 3. The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief:- "Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 20.03.2024 and cognizance order dated 24.06.2024 by verified compromise dated 16.08.2024 as contained Annexure No.8 to this petition in Case Crime No.0038/2024, U/s 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. State Versus Rahul Gautam, Police Station- Indira Nagar, District - Lucknow pending before learned Special A.C.J.M. (C.B.I.) A.P. Lucknow contained as Annexure No.1 & 2 respectively to this petition." 4. Opposite party no.2/victim is present before this Court, who has been identified by Shri Virendra Vikram Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 5. It is stated that the applicant and victim/opposite party no.2, both doctors, were in affair and for some reasons the applicant had not solemnized marriage with the opposite party no.2/victim and therefore being annoyed the opposite party no.2/victim lodged the FIR making allegation therein that on the assurance of solemnizing marriage the applicant established physical relations and also duped Rs.2.5 lakh and now the opposite party no.2/victim is married to applicant and accordingly the present case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181; Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032 and being so the proceedings in issue are liable to be interfered by this Court. 6. It appears that after considering the aforesaid averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.9241 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. 7. It appears from the order dated 23.11.2024 (Annexure No.6) that the trial court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the Court. 8. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations on the issue related to establishing physical relationship on assurance of marriage made in the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar (supra); Deepak Gulati (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar (supra) and as also the fact that the applicant and victim have now married each other, this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court in view of the aforesaid including the nature of relationship between the applicant and the opposite party no.2/victim as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the matrimonial life of the applicant and opposite party no.2/victim would be ruined as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.0038/2024, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. 10. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench