Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118529 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10016 of 2024 Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Tripathi,Ram Charan Lal Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for the informant-opposite party No.2, A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the Charge-sheet dated 09.07.2023 as well as summoning order dated 02.12.2023 and entire proceedings of case No. 14043 of 2023 (State vs. Vivek Kumar Verma) arising out of Case Crime No. 156 of 2023, Under section 376(2)N, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. 3. Facts enumerated in the instant matter are that an F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant on 19.04.2023 in Case Crime No. 156 of 2023,, under section 376, 313, 506 I.P.C. with the allegation that applicant on the pretext of false promise of marriage committed rape with the informant. Investigating Officer after due investigation submitted charge-sheet on 09.07.2023 under section 376(2)N, 506 I.P.C., upon which learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summoning order against the applicant, which is assailed by means of the instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim/informant and applicant have solemnized marriage on 22.05.2023. He further submits that applicant and victim had got their marriage registered on 31.05.2023. On account of above, the victim started residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife. Bonafide of the parties is also explicit from the fact that the marriage of parties has also been registered under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules 2017. Photocopy of the marriage registration certificate has been brought on record as Annexure no. 10 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. 5. He further urged that subsequent to the registration of the marriage both the parties have entered into a compromise out side the court on 24.04.2024. 6. He further submits that this Court while entertaining the matter on 08.05.2024 had sent the matter for verification of compromise arrived at between the parties before the court concerned and in compliance of the aforesaid order learned C.J.M., Bareilly vide order dated 10.05.2024 has verified the compromise arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same is brought on record. 7. In this background, learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the marriage of the parties has been registered and they have entered into a compromise, which is also verified by the learned C.J.M., Bareilly, therefore, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant shall now stand washed of. On the above conspectus, learned counsel for the applicant submits that criminal prosecution of applicant is liable to be quashed. In case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family shall stand broken. He therefore submits that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court. 8. Per Contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present application on the premise that the victim was sexually harassed by the applicant on the false promise of marriage, therefore, subsequent developments, if any, will not wipe out the criminality committed by the applicant as suggested by the learned counsel for applicant, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in the instant matter. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has not disputed the facts averred by the learned counsel for the applicant. 10. Heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It transpires from the record that in the light of marriage having taken place between the victim and accused/ applicant, more particularly, the marriage being registered and a certificate being issued in accordance with law depicting the couple to be legally wedded husband and wife and it shows that the couple are leading a happy marital life. In the teeth of these facts, glaring enough they are, if the Court would shut its doors to the couple who are married and bringing up the child, the entire proceeding would result in miscarriage of justice. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of accused/applicant. On account of the facts as noted above, the chances of conviction of accused/applicant are now not only remote but also bleak in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. As such, in case the criminal prosecution of applicant is allowed to continue, a happy family comprising of accused/applicant and victim shall stand broken. 12. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgements of Supreme Court in the case of K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle" 13. Also in the case of Mafat Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 6 SCC 589, the Supreme Court in paragraph no. 7 of the said judgement has held that :- "7. Before this Court, also the abductee has joined the accused as appellant No.2. Once again similar stand has been taken as was taken before the High Court. Both the appellants have filed separate affidavits. Appellant No.2 has specifically stated before the High Court as also before this Court that she had left her parental home on her own free volition. The appellants are married since December 2006 and have been living happily. They have also been blessed with a son in the year 2014 who would now be 8 years old. No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Section 363 IPC. In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will. Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the appellant no. 2 the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the appellant no.1 and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married appellant no.1 on her own free will without any influence being exercised by appellant no.1." 14. In Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana reported in 2024 Live Law (SC) 391, the hon'ble Apex Court in para 8 has held as follows:- "8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger." 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. 16. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned judgements is squarely applicable to the present case as applicant has solemnized marriage with the victim and compromise has also arrived at between the parties. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute before the trial court, which is apparent from the Settlement Agreement dated 24.04.2024 placed on the record, and also both the parties are living together as husband and wife, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed. 18. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is ALLOWED and the criminal proceeding against applicant in case No. 14043 of 2023 (State vs. Vivek Kumar Verma) arising out of Case Crime No. 156 of 2023, Under section 376(2)N, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly are hereby QUASHED. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad