Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43859 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 849 of 2025 Applicant :- Anuj Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Verma,Beant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mohd. Asif Khan, the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.15211/2025 arising out of the Case Crime No.268/2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC at Police Station- Jaidpur, District- Barabanki pending before the learned CJM, Court No.18, Barabanki. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No.2 on 25.07.2024 stating that his sister (the opposite party No.3) had got married to the applicant No.1 on 16.02.2022; all the accused persons used to harass her for demanding dowry and she alleged molestation by her father-in-law (the applicant No.2). 4. In the statement of the opposite party No.3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the FIR version but in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she alleged that the applicant No.2 had forcibly made physical relations with her. 5. The medico-legal examination report of the victim did not reveal anything significant. 6. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge-sheet dated 01.09.2024 against the applicants. 7. Prior to submission of the charge-sheet, the opposite party No.2 and 3 had given an application to the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki supported by affidavits of both opposite party Nos.2 and 3 stating that the FIR is lodged upon being mislead by some person whereas the applicant No.2 has not committed any misdeed against the opposite party No.3. 8. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a fresh settlement on 27.05.2025 stating that they have resolved their disputes and the genuineness of the compromise was verified by means of an order dated 01.05.2025. 9. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have accepted the terms of compromise and supported the prayer for quashing of the proceedings on the ground of compromise. 10. 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." 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. 11. Although, there is an allegation of commission of misdeed by the applicant No.2, this allegation was not supported by the findings of the medico-legal examination report and it has subsequently been revoked by the opposite party Nos.2 & 3. Prima facie, it appears that the allegation was levelled to put a pressure upon the applicant upon the on-going matrimonial dispute between the opposite party No.3 and the applicant No.1. In these circumstances, when the parties have arrived at a settlement, continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicants will be an abuse of process of law. 12. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.15211/2025 arising out of the Case Crime No.268/2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC at Police Station- Jaidpur, District- Barabanki pending before the learned CJM, Court No.18, Barabanki are quashed. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 29.7.2025/-Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench