Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3829 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 448 of 2025 Applicant :- Vinit Nigam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned Advocate has filed short counter affidavit and also filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record. 3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following main relief(s):- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Criminal Proceeding of the Session Case no. 1588 of 2022 (State Vs Vineet Nigam) relating to Case Crime No. 312 of 2022, Under Section 323, 313, 376, 506 I.P.C. & 3 (2) V The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Gudamba District Lucknow, pending before Learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow, Lucknow in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash summoning order dated 22.8.22 passed by the Learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow, in the Session Case no. 1588 of 2022 (State Vs Vineet Nigam), relating to Case Crime No. 312 of 2022, Under Section 323, 313, 376, 506 I.P.C. & 3(2)V The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police StationGudamba District- Lucknow, as contained in Annexure no. 1 to this application as well as the Charge Sheet dated 15.8.22, filed in the Case Crime No. 312 of 2022, Under Section 323, 313, 376, 506 I.P.C. & 3(2)V The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Gudamba, District-Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No.2 to this application, in the interest of justice." 4. It is stated that applicant and opposite party no.2/informant are husband and wife. As per version of the F.I.R. the applicant kept the opposite party No.2 in live-in-relationship for about one year by luring her and promised her to marry and would take her to his home. In the meantime, the opposite party No.2 became pregnant and when she pressurize the applicant to marry her, they perform marriage in a temple and applicant took her to his home. However, he gave her abortion pills. When opposite party No.2 raised objection, she was ousted from the house of the applicant. After some time, applicant realized his mistake and started apologizing. Applicant again took her to his house where she was beaten by the family members of the applicant and the F.I.R. in question was lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant says that the F.I.R. was lodged in fit of anger and both the parties have now settled their dispute and at present they are living happily as husband and wife. They have also prepared a deed of compromise, which has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the application. Learned counsel for the applicant, in view of the above circumstances states that 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. 5. It is further stated that on conjoint reading of the contents of the F.I.R. lodged by the victim and her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which are in consonance with the allegation leveled in the F.I.R. against the applicant make it crystal clear that it is a case to be interfered with in the light of the 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. 6. 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 present age of the opposite party no. 3/victim i.e. about 30 years, 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. 3/victim as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the future prospects of the opposite party no. 3/victim would be affected 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. 7. This Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings of the Session Case no. 1588 of 2022 (State Vs Vineet Nigam), relating to Case Crime No. 312 of 2022, Under Sections 323, 313, 376, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3 (2) V The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow, pending before Learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly the same are hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. 9. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 ML/- Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench