Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5251 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 528 of 2025 Applicant :- Pranav Dwivedi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prakhar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amrish Kumar Tiwari,Krishna Mohan Srivastava along with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7260 of 2023 Applicant :- Pranav Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kshemendra Shukla,Prakhar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhay Misra Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in Application U/S 482 No.7260 of 2023 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3. The Application U/S 482 No. 528 of 2025 has been filed by the applicants seeking following main relief:- "To quash the impugned charge sheet dated 21.06.2023 and summoning order dated 19.11.2024, relating to Case Crime No. 0113 of 2023, registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar Vistar, under Section-376, 506, 377 and 323 IPC having Case No.80269 of 2023, as well as the entire proceedings of case no. 80269 of 23 (State vs Pranav Dwivedi and another), pending before the Learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and to stay the further proceedings of case no. 80269 of 2023 pending before the Learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow." 4. The Application U/S 482 No. 7260 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief- "To quash/set aside the Impugned Order dated 20.05.2023 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/ FTC II District Lucknow in Sessions Case no. 1478 of 2022 (C.N.R. No. UPLK0101268122022), wherein the discharge application preferred by the applicant has been dismissed and to allow the discharge application preferred by the applicant/petitioner before the learned court of Additional District and Session Judge/ FTC II District Lucknow in Sessions Case no. 1478 of 2022 (C.N.R. No. UPLK0101268122022), District Lucknow." 5. It is stated that an F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow on 25.05.2022 by 'X', aged about 26 years, opposite party No.2 in Application U/S 482 No.7260 of 2023 and opposite party No.3 in Application U/S 482 No.528 of 2025, and this F.I.R. was registered as F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0385/ 2022, under Sections 323, 376 and 494 I.P.C. 6. According to this F.I.R. No.0385 of 2022, the applicant, a married person, established physical relations with 'X' on assurance of solemnising marriage with her after seeking divorce from his wife. This F.I.R. also indicates that the applicant and 'X' were in relationship since September, 2021. The F.I.R. also alleges that on 23.05.2022, the marriage between the applicant and 'X' was solemnised in a temple situated near Malik Timber Crossing, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and on 22.05.2022 also, the applicant forcefully established physical relations with the 'X'. After solemnising marriage with the 'X', the applicant refused to live with the 'X'. This F.I.R. further indicates that the applicant and his wife both assaulted the 'X' on 24.05.2022. 7. It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid facts, the case of the present 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. 8. It is further stated that in the F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0385/ 2022, the charge sheet was filed against the applicant and not against the wife of the applicant. 9. It is further stated that the applicant was apprehended and sent to jail and thereafter the applicant was released on bail in terms of order dated 21.09.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7671 of 2022 (Pranav Dwivedi S/O Sri Dinesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko). 10. It is also stated that just to pressurise the applicant, the 'X' again lodged an F.I.R. on 30.04.2023 at Police Station- Gomti Nagar Extension, District- Lucknow registered as F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0113/ 2023, under Sections 376 and 506 I.PC. The F.I.R. annexed as Annexure No.6 to the application U/S 482 No.528 of 2025 would indicate that this F.I.R. is completely bogus and false. Elaborating, it is stated that according to F.I.R., the applicant again established physical relationship with the 'X' and also entered in the premises of 'X' at 03.00 AM on 18.02.2023 and forcefully established physical relations with the 'X' and if the allegations are taken to be true, then it is a case of consensuous relationship, though, the entire story of the prosecution indicated in the F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0385/ 2022 in fact is completely false and bogus. 11. It is further stated that taking note of the facts of the case, this Court entertained the application U/s 482 No.7260 of 2023, which was filed challenging the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC-II, Lucknow (in short "trial Court") whereby trial Court rejected the application seeking discharge. The order dated 03.08.2023 referred reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 20.5.2023 passed by learned Addl. District and Session Judge/F.T.C.II, District Lucknow in Sessions Case No.1478 of of 2022 (C.N.R. No.U.PLK0101268122022), wherein discharge application preferred by the applicant has been dismissed. 3. In pursuance of earlier order, Investigating Officer, Satish Kumar Singh, is present and stated that victim denied her internal medico legal examination, therefore, same could not be conducted and also stated that on the basis of false promise, victim was raped by the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. in question is lodged with the allegation that applicant has already been married and even then, he entered into marriage with the victim, therefore, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 494 and 376 I.P.C. He further submits that entire prosecution story is contradictory, as in the F.I.R., it is admitted that applicant was already married and he assured that he will divorce his wife but on the next date, he entered into marriage with the victim and this is highly improbable story. He further submits that victim is a prudent lady, having criminal mentality and this is a case of honey-trap and the applicant was blackmailed by the victim and when the applicant denied to fulfill her demand, then F.I.R. in question was lodged and charge sheet was filed by the Investigating officer in the most mechanical manner and discharge application was filed before the court below but the court below has rejected the application for discharge without considering the legal argument that when the applicant already married and next date, she entered into marriage with the applicant, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant and submits that there is no illegality in the order but he does not dispute this fact that victim has admitted that applicant has assured her that he will enter into marriage with her, after giving divorce to his wife but on the next date, they entered into marriage. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident from the record that on 22.5.2022, that applicant has assured the victim that he will give divorce to his wife and solemnize marriage with her and on 23.5.2022, they enter into marriage and also made physical relations on 25.5.2022, in such circumstances, matter requires consideration. 6. Issue notice to the private respondent. 7. List this case in the second week of October, 2023. 8. Until further order, impugned proceedings of the case in question shall remain stayed. 9. Presence of officer present today is hereby discharged." 12. It is stated that 'X', opposite party No.2 in Application U/S 482 No.7260 of 2023 and opposite party No.3 in Application No.528 of 2025, has not taken any benefit from the State exchequer. 13. It is further stated that the statement(s) of the 'X' were recorded during investigation in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in relation to both the FIRs i.e. F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0385 of 2022 and F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0113 of 2023 and from a perusal of the same, it is apparent that it is a case of consensuous relationship, though not true, and if the allegations levelled against the applicant are taken to be true, in that eventuality, the 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 (supra); Deepak Gulati (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar (supra). 14. It is also stated that it appears that the 'X' was in infatuation and for this reason, she was making pressure to get marriage solemnised with the applicant and therefore, both the F.I.R.s were lodged. 15. Further submission is that the better sense prevailed during the pendency of criminal proceedings in issue against the applicant and therefore, the 'X' now wants to settle with someone else and for this very reason, she does not want to pursue the pending criminal proceedings in issue arising out of F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0385 of 2022 and F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0113 of 2023, respectively, and the same can be inferred from pleadings and documents on record of Application U/S 482 No.7260 of 2023 and Application U/S 482 No.528 of 2025. 16. Prayer is to grant the relief(s) as prayed. 17. Side opposite could not dispute the aforesaid. 18. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations on the issue related to establishing physical relationship on the 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 'X' i.e. about 26 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 'X' as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the future prospects of the 'X' 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, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0385 of 2022 and F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0113 of 2023, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed. 19. Accordingly, the present applications are allowed. 20. 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 G. Singh/ Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench