JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing the First Information Report along with the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Daltonganj (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 54 of 2018 dated 06.10.2018.

4. The First Information Report was lodged by O.P. No. 2 alleging therein that by way of false promise the petitioner has made physical relation with the O.P. No. 2.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the O.P. No. 2 jointly submit that the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 have been married and they are living peacefully and enjoying their conjugal life. The marriage has been registered in the Office of Registrar of Marriage in the District of Garhwa. The petitioner has moved before this Court in A.B.A. No. 7943/2018 and in that A.B.A. O.P. No. 2 was also heard by this Court and anticipatory bail was allowed in favour of the petitioner.

6. In view of the submission of the O.P. No. 2 of solemnization of marriage between the parties and leading happily their conjugal life, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 submits that charge has been framed in the concerned court and thereafter only the matter is being adjourned and no witnesses have been examined thereafter. He submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mahatta vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, wherein it has been held that inherent power of the High Court to quash the proceeding can be exercised even after the charge sheet has been filed. Paragraph No. 16 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:

“16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.”

7. In view of the aforesaid judgment now it is well settled that at any stage, to prevent the abuse of process of law, FIR can be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. From the aforesaid paragraph, it is also clear that filing of the charge-sheet cannot be a ground to refuse quashing of the FIR, if no criminal offence is made out. Thus, there is no bar in quashing the F.I.R. even when the charge sheet has been filed and the case has proceeded. In the F.I.R. allegation of physical relation on a false promise has been made and in view of subsequent development, as both the parties, the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 are married and they are enjoying conjugal life, this Court can exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as there is no societal interest involved and the parties are married, no fruitful purpose will be served in allowing to continue the proceeding.

8. In view of the above facts and considering that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above, the Court quash the F.I.R. and the entire criminal procee