Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113681 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19381 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijendra @ Bhola Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi,Nikhilesh Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1, and perused the record. 2. In the instant matter an FIR was lodged on 08.01.2021 under Sections 452, 342, 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act against the applicant wherein it is alleged that the applicant had come to the house of informant and misbehaved with her after bolting the door from inside. After due investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted including one additional section i.e., Section 376 IPC on 06.02.2021. During trial, both the parties had entered into compromise on 31.05.2024, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the instant application. The applicant had married the victim and both are living together as a married couple. Marriage certificate has also been appended as Annexure 4 to this application. 3. In view of aforesaid facts, vide order dated 14.06.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the concerned trial court for verification of compromise. 4. In pursuance of aforesaid order, report dated 07.08.2024 has been sent by the concerned trial court, which is available on record. On perusal of said report, it transpires that the parties had appeared before the trial, who were identified by their respective counsel and the compromise was verified by the trial court on 06.08.2024. Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and the applicant has married the victim/O.P. no.2 and O.P. no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicant, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it pending. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has no objection if the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings are quashed in terms of the compromise between the parties. 6. It transpires from the record that in the light of marriage having taken place between the victim and the accused/applicant and 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 married couple, 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. 7. On account of the facts as noted above, the chances of conviction of accused/applicant 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. 8. 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." 9. 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. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned judgements is squarely applicable to the present case as the applicant has solemnized marriage with the victim (O.P. no.2) and the compromise has also arrived at between the parties, which has been verified by the concerned trial court. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the applicant 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. 11. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, chargesheet dated 06.02.2021, cognizance order dated 06.03.2021 as well as the entire proceeding of S.S.T. No. 27/2021, arising out of Case Crime No.06 of 2021, under Sections 452, 342, 354, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Dhanari, District-Sambhal pending in the court of Additional District Sessions Judge, Sambhal, qua the present applicant is hereby quashed in terms of compromise dated 31.05.2024. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad