Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7184 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 485 of 2025 Applicant :- Arun Alias Arun Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. /Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arpan Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohak Srivastava,Nimish Rahul,Vaibhav Srivastava Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Applicant, informant/opposite party no.2 and victim/opposite party no.3 are present before this Court. 2. The applicant has been identified by Shri Arpan Prakash Srivastava, Advocate, whereas the informant/opposite party no.2 and victim/opposite party no.3 have been identified by Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, learned counsel for oppsite party no(s).2 and 3, leanred AGA for the State and gone through the record. 4. The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief:- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, the humble applicant most respectfully prays from this Hon'ble Court to kindly quash the operation and implementation of the Summoning order dated 02.08.2021 in S.T. no. 1505/2020 (State vs Arun Kumar) U/S 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No. 14. Hardoi as well as chargesheet and subsequent proceedings of S.T. no. 1505/2020 against the applicant in the interest of justice." 5. It is stated that applicant and opposite party no.3 were in affair and this relationship was not accepted by the opposite party no.2, father of the victim/opposite party no.3, and her other family members of the victim/opposite party no.3 and therefore with intention to solemnize marriage with the applicant the victim/opposite party no.3 on 05.02.2018 left her parental house on her own volition with one Rambir and the applicant met the victim/opposite party no.3 at Bilgram and thereafter both went to District Hardoi where they solemnized marriage at Arya Samaj Temple. All these facts can be deduced from Annexure No.7, the copy of the statement of the victim/opposite party no.3 recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C., which was recorded in the light of the observations/directions made by Division Bench of this Court in order dated 25.05.2018 passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No.6523 of 2018 (Arun @ Arun Kumar & another Vs. State of U.P. & others), copy whereof is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the application. 6. It is further stated that the medical examination of the victim was also carried in terms of order dated 25.05.2018 and upon due medical examination the doctor opined that the victim, at the relevant point of time, was about 20 years old. 7. It is further stated that out of the wedlock of applicant and victim/opposite party no.3 there is a child, born on 01.08.2021, as evident from Annexure No.5 to the present application, which is a copy of birth certificate issued by the competent authority. 8. It is further stated that in the facts of the instant case particularly that the victim/opposite party no.3 was more than 18 years at the time of lodging of FIR, which was registered as FIR No.0045 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. in which subsequently charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer (in short 'I.O.') under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, based upon which the criminal case in issue is pending and victim/opposite party no.3 on her own volition solemnized marriage with the applicant, the indulgence of this Court is required after taking note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of 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, in relation to determination of age in absence of appropriate proof to establish that date of birth recorded in school records was correctly mentioned. 9. It is also stated that presently the applicant and victim/opposite party no.3 are living as husband and wife along with their minor child happily under one roof, which can be deduced from the facts pleaded in the present application. 10. The victim/opposite party no.3 present before this Court supported the case of the applicant and informant/opposite party no.2 could not dispute the aforesaid. 11. 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 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, and also the observations made by Apex Court 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 opposite party no.3/victim and the applicant and the future of their minor child 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. 12. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench