Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37036 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4671 of 2025 Applicant :- Sharad Malik Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh,Sandeep Kumar(Trivedi) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Diwaker Singh, the learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Vivek Kumar Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 9931 of 2016 titled as "State of U.P. Vs. Sharad Malik" arising out of Case Crime No. 204 of 2014, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C, Police Station Kaiserbagh, District Lucknow, which is pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- Ist, Lucknow, on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise. 3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R in furtherance of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C filed on 14.08.2014, alleging that the applicant made physical relations with the opposite party no.2 under allurement of marrying her and thereafter he declined to marry her. 4. The original compromise entered into between the parties has been annexed with the application wherein the opposite party no.2 has stated that she had lodged the F.I.R due to some misunderstanding and upon being misguided. It is stated in the F.I.R that both the parties are now married to other persons and they are happily living with their respective spouses. The opposite party no.2 categorically stated that she does not want any proceedings to continue against the applicant. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed a short counter affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and has given her consent for proceedings being quashed on the basis of compromise. 6. In the case of Bahori Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Another 2024 SCC OnLine All 4596, this Court has examined the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1186, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531, Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030 and has culled out the following principles from the aforesaid judgments: "27. ....... the inherent powers of the High Courts recognized by Section 482 Cr. P.C. are wide and can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings, but the power has to be exercised judiciously and consciously. The High Courts can exercise their jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law is clearly made out. Such powers ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind the nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society; the seriousness of the injury,if any, the voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim, the conduct of the accused persons and the other relevant considerations. Though the Courts should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there is sufficient evidence which may lead to proving the charges. The High Court can quash the proceedings even in cases where the parties have entered into a settlement after conviction for a heinous offence carrying a maximum punishment for life. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast rule restricting the powers of the High Court to do substantial justice, as a restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may lead to grave injustice." 7. In the case of K. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, an FIR under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 was registered alleging that the appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, which amounted to committing rape. He was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence. In appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the allegation against the appellant was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, whereas he had in fact married the prosecutrix and they had two children and they were being taken care of by the appellant and she was leading a happy married life. The prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. After taking into consideration these facts, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant in view of the subsequent events by observing that “This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.” However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also expressed that the order shall not be treated as a precedent. 8. When we examine the facts of the present case in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it appears that a complaint has been filed alleging that the applicant made physical relations with the complainant under the allurement of marrying her and he subsequently denied to marry her and now the informant has stated that she had lodged the F.I.R. under some misconception and the parties have got married to other persons and they are living happily with their respective spouses and the informant does not want to pursue the proceedings. The continuance of the proceedings will not be in the interest of the applicant or even in the interest of the informant as well as it will not be in the interest of justice. 9. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the proceedings of Case No. 9931 of 2016 titled as "State of U.P. Vs. Sharad Malik" arising out of Case Crime No. 204 of 2014, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C, Police Station Kaiserbagh, District Lucknow, is hereby quashed. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench