Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15925 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2460 of 2025 Applicant :- Lalit @ Lalit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record as well. 2. A short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 is taken on record. 3. Present case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. with the following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. and may further be pleased to quash the entire proceeding S.T. no.975 of 2016, State V/s Lalit Kuamr arising out of Case Crime No.670/2016, under section 336, 366,376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station- Kakori, District- Lucknow, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act Ist Lucknow, charge dated 11.12.2017 as contained in Annexure No. 2 & 3 to this Application." 4. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have submitted that earlier the present applicant had approached this court by filing Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1674 of 2025 enclosing therewith compromise deed entered into between the parties. This Court vide its judgment and order dated 24.02.2025 had disposed of the application with a direction to the trial court concerned to verify the compromise. 5. After the judgment and order dated 24.02.2025, the applicant and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had appeared before the court concerned and the compromise was verified by order dated 01.03.2025, which has been enclosed as annexure no. 12 to the present application. 6. It is further submitted that the alleged victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has deposed that she was in love with the applicant and she married him on her own sweet will without there being any force/pressure upon her. 7. It is further submitted that the applicant had not committed any offence and the alleged victim wanted to live with the applicant and she does not want to go to her parent's place. 8. Leaned counsel for both the parties have further submitted that out of the wedlock, they have one child and they are living happily and the FIR was lodged as the complainant was misguided by the villagers. 9. It is further submitted by learned counsel for both the parties that presently the applicant and the alleged victim are living as husband and wife under one roof happily and if interference will not be made by this Court in the matter, the entire matrimonial life of the applicant and the alleged victim will be ruined. 10. 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 given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court as the applicant and the alleged victim are leading a happy married life and have one child from the wedlock and this is an undisputed fact. 11. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in issue, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed. 12. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Ashish Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench