Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5309 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2254 of 2014 Applicant :- Smt. Reshma Devi And Anr. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P Thru Secy. Home Lucknow And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh,Ram Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. According to office report dated 04.09.2014 the notice of the instant petition/application was served personally upon opposite party no.2 and despite of service, no-one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2. 3. Heard. 4. The instant application has been filed for the following main relief (s):- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Criminal Proceeding of Case No.615/2014 related to case crime no.240/13 U/S 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station – Sandi, District -Hardoi, pending before A.C.J.M. 1st Hardoi." 5. After considering the facts of the case on 03.06.2014 this Court in the instant case passed the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners for quashing of the proceedings of Case Crime No. 615 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 240 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., relating to P.S. Sandi, District-Hardoi pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Hardoi. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have earlier approached this Court for quashing of the F.I.R. by way of filing the Writ Petition No. 3087 (M/B) of 2013, in which a direction was issued to the Investigating Officer to get the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also produce the prosecutrix for medical examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded, in which she did not make any allegation against the petitioners. The medical examination report, which has been annexed with this petition also indicates that the prosecutrix was about 18 years of age. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that since the prosecutrix has not made any allegation against the petitioners, the police has wrongly submitted charge-sheet against them. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 returnable by an early date. List immediately after service of notice. Till the next date of listing no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioners." 6. On 03.10.2024, this Court dismissed the application for want of prosecution. 7. After the order dated 03.10.2024 the Application No.2/2024 and Application No.3/2024 (Application for Condonation of Delay and Application for recalling of order), respectively, were preferred. 8. Considering the peculiar facts of the case including the fact that out of wedlock of applicant no(s).1 and 2 there are three children, one boy and two girls, namely Asani, Prachi and Shristi, aged about 9 years, 7 years and 2 years respectively, this Court on 16.01.2025 directed the applicants to remain present before this Court. 9. Today, the applicants along with a minor, named above, are present, who have been identified by their counsel Shri Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to condone the delay and recall the order whereby the present application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Ordered accordingly. 11. It is stated that from a perusal of record, it is apparent that the FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2, who has not put in appearance despite service of notice, only on account of the fact that she was opposing the relationship of applicant no.1 with applicant no.2. According to FIR, the applicant no.2 with the help of others, named in the FIR, enticed away the victim/daughter of opposite party no.2, who was aged about 16 years and was studying in class-XI. 12. It is further stated that according to the statement(s) of the victim recorded during investigation in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim was aged about 21 years and she, on her own volition, left her parental house and accompanied the applicant no.1 to Delhi and stayed there for about two months as husband and wife and applicant no.2 established physical relations with the consent of victim/applicant no.1 as both applicant no.2 and victim/applicant no.1 were in affair. 13. It is further stated that according to medical opinion, the victim at the relevant point of time, i.e. at the time of lodging of FIR was about 18 years, as such, taking note of the same as also that there is no authentic proof to establish the date of birth of victim/applicant no.1 recorded in school records as also various pronouncements on the issue related to determination of age, the victim/applicant no.1 is liable to be considered as major at the time of incident. 14. It is also stated that in so far as age of victim/applicant no.1 indicated in the FIR is concerned, the same was not correctly mentioned and there is no evidence to support/establish the age of the victim mentioned in the FIR and in view of the facts of the instant case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397, shall be extended in favour of the applicants no.2 and applicant no.1/victim both. 15. It is also stated that presently the applicant no.2 and victim/applicant no.1 are living as husband and wife alongwith their minors namely Asani, aged about 9 years, Prachi, aged about 7 years, and Shristi, aged about 2 years, which can be deduced from the facts pleaded in the supplementary affidavit filed today. 16. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter, as otherwise, entire matrimonial life of applicant no.2 and victim/applicant no.1 as also future of their minors would be ruined. 17. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra), Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Suhana (supra) 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 the ends of substantial justice, the proceedings based upon the settlement between the parties can be quashed, as also taking note of the nature of dispute/crime and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of applicant no.1/victim and the applicant no.2 as also the future of their minors would be ruined, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in issue, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. 18. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench