Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49275 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4974 of 2015 Applicant :- Ram Charndra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Gupta,Amitabh Shukla,Om Prakash Vishwakarma,Satish Chandra Sitapuri Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ashok Kumar Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Affidavit filed today by Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Amitabh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/ complainant/ informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the following prayer:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceedings of the sessions Trial No.461/2011 relating to case crime number 380/2011 of police station Kachauna, District Hardoi pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hardoi and decide the application of compromise dated 25.11.2014 as contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition and petition be allowed with cost, in interest of justice." 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR was lodged by the mother of the alleged victim under certain misconception and thereafter the matter proceeded. He submits that in the year 2013, the alleged victim performed marriage with someone else and is enjoying marital life and having five year children from their wedlock. He further added that there is no evidence against the applicant so as to commit the offence and the victim submits that she do not want to press proceeding further. Thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding may be quashed. 5. On the other hand. learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that the daughter of the opposite party no.2 got married in the year 2013 and she has five children and is living with her husband. He submits that the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped as the opposite party no.2 is not willing to press the prosecution. 6. Learned State Counsel has opposed the contention but he has no objection if the alleged victim has performed marriage with someone else and is living separately. 7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that an FIR was lodged against the applicant with the allegation that he has committed rape with the alleged victim, whereas fact remains that the victim performed marriage in the year 2013 and the mother of the victim who is an informant is not intended to press the prosecution case. This Court has also notices that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Madhukar and Others versus State of Maharashtra and Another in SLP (Crl.) No.7212 of 2025 has held that if the alleged victim has settled her life by performing marriage since long back and is not interested to pursue the case, allowing further criminal proceeding would prolong the distress for all concern especially the complainant and the victim and the exercise of the trial would likelihood of no productive outcome. 8. Paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment is referred as follows:- "7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More Importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome" 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the affidavit given by the mother of the alleged victim/ informant and the law rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhukar and Others (supra), the criminal proceeding Sessions Trial No.461 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No.380 of 2011, under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kachauna, District Hardoi, is hereby quashed. 10. The application is allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench