Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115285 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27415 of 2014 Applicant :- Guddu And Anr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- B.K. Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Umesh Chandra Tiwari Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Umesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet No.121-A of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No.91 of 2014 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Manather, District-Moradabad as well as entire proceeding of S.T. No.650 of 2014, pending before the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Moradabad. 3. Facts which emerge from the record are that opposite party no.2 had lodged an FIR against applicant no.1 on 13.03.2014 alleging that when he was working outside, the applicant no.1 enticed away his minor daughter. In the said matter, after investigation charge-sheet was filed and the Court concerned had taken cognizance and the trial is going on. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant and the victim/daughter of opposite party no.2 both were major at the time of incident and they have solemnized the marriage on 8.3.2014, however, the father of opposite party no.2 was not happy with the said marriage, hence, an FIR was lodged by him. He further submits that according to medical report the age of the victim was 19 years at the time of incident and the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she has solemnized the marriage with applicant no.1 with her own free will. Lastly, it is submitted that the victim and applicant no.1 have three children out of their wedlock and they have settled the matter by way of compromise. 5. Sri Umesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2/complainant has filed an affidavit jointly sworn by the victim as well as opposite party no.2 stating that they do not want to prosecute the applicants and have no objection if the instant proceeding is quashed and the instant application is allowed as the accused and the victim are living happily. 6. Learned AGA appearing for the State respondents too has no objection with the same. 7. Heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It transpires from the record that in the light of marriage having taken place between the victim and the accused/applicant no.1, more particularly, there being an application for registration of marriage, shows that the couple is living 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, the entire proceeding would result in miscarriage of justice. As such, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of accused/applicants. 9. On account of the facts as noted above, the chances of conviction of accused/applicants is 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. 10. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana, 2024 Live Law (SC) 391 wherein the Court has held in para No.8 as under: "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." 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principle for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. 12. 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. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the applicant no.1 has married the victim and the parties have amicably settled their dispute before the trial court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the charge-sheet No.121-A of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No.91 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Manather, District-Moradabad as well as entire proceeding of S.T. No.650 of 2014, pending before the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Moradabad, is hereby quashed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 LN Tripathi Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad