HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6907 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Counsel affidavit along with the Vakalatnama, filed by Shri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and Shri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 3. The instant application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet no. 1 dated 17.02.2023, in Criminal Case/ S.T. No. 45 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0020 of 2023, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) (State Vs. Gulab Chandra Yadav), pending in the Court of A.D.J./F.T.C.- II, Lucknow. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and he submitted that due to misconception, the First Information Repor is lodged by the prosecutrix herself, though there is no truthfulness in the same subsequentally the parties stayed together and they have settled their dispute on 30.06.2025 while executing a comprimise deed which is appended with the application. 4. He also submitted that the applicant and the alleged prosecutrix Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Seema Srivastava, Amrit Anand Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Deepak Kumar Gulab Chandra Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) solemnized their marriage on 30.06.2025 and are now living as husband and wife. He added that the continuation of further criminal proceedings would not serve any purpose. 5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another, (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021, and has relied upon paragraphs 9 and 10, which are extracted below: "9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law." "10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant." 6. Referring to the aforesaid, he submits that the present applicant's case is squarely covered by the ratio of the said judgment. Thus, it is submitted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicant. He submitted that the First Information Report was lodged under a misconception, and now the parties have settled their dispute and have solemnized their marriage. They are now living peacefully as husband and wife. In addition, he also submitted that both are incidentally present in court and, if this Court permits, they may be produced so as to their statements can be recorded. On this prayer being allowed, they were produced before the court and were identified by their respective counsels. 8. On a query being asked, the informant, namely Parul Yadav, has stated that under certain misconception the First Information Report was lodged, though she has performed the marriage with the A482 No. 6907 of 2025 2 applicant, Gulab Chandra Yadav and she is living as husband and wife, and there is no dispute further. The applicant, present before this Court also reiterated the same version and submitted that he has performed the marriage with the opposite party no.2, and they are living peacefully. 9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the statement of the applicant as well as the opposite party no.2 deposed here, it is apparent that initially the First Information Report was lodged but subsequentally the opposite party no.2 has performed marriage and they are living as husband and wife. This Court finds that the parties have settled their dispute and that allowing further criminal proceedings to continue would serve no purpose. The marital life of the applicant and the opposite party no.2 would be vanished and no fruitful purpose would be served as the matter would not lead to punishment. 10. Resultantly, the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case/ S.T. No. 45 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0020 of 2023, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) (State Vs. Gulab Chandra Yadav), pending in the Court of A.D.J./F.T.C.- II, Lucknow, is hereby quashed. 11. The application is allowed accordingly. August 25, 2025 Haseen U. A482 No. 6907 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench