IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Devesh Pandey and Another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 774 of 2025
Decided On : 06-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 376, 420 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Quashing of chargesheet and criminal proceedings - Application filed seeking to quash chargesheet and proceedings against applicants on grounds of a subsequent marriage and family establishment - Court noted that the victim supported the application and emphasized the need to prevent abuse of process in light of the relationship dynamics - Previous judgments cited indicated that inherent powers could be exercised to secure justice. (Paras 3, 10, 12, 13)
(B) Criminal Law - Establishing physical relationship on assurance of marriage - The court highlighted that previous judgments established a legal precedent for quashing proceedings when parties marry after the alleged incident, emphasizing the need to consider the current context of the relationship. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicants sought to quash a chargesheet filed against them for various offenses, claiming a consensual relationship with the victim who later married one of the applicants. The FIR alleged rape and other offenses based on a false promise of marriage. (Paras 4-8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the relationship dynamics and subsequent marriage warranted quashing the criminal proceedings to prevent injustice. (Paras 12-13)
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings should continue given the subsequent marriage and the victim's support for the application. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the established relationship and subsequent marriage justified quashing the proceedings, aligning with legal precedents that allow for quashing when parties reconcile. (Paras 12)
Result: Application allowed, and the criminal proceedings were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
1. Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Awasthi, Advocate on behalf of the the victim/complainant/opposite party No. 2 in the Court today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the victim/complainant/opposite party No. 2.
3. Instant application has been filed by the applicants seeking following main relief:-
"i. To quash/set aside the impugned chargesheet No. 127 of 2016 dated 06.12.2016 as well as consequential criminal proceedings S.T. No. 223 of 2017 (State Vs. Devesh Pandey & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2016 P.S. Haiderganj, Ayodhya pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/FTC-Ist Ayodhya, U/section-323, 376, 420 IPC against the petitioners in the interest of justice."
4. It is stated that the victim/complainant/opposite party No. 2 made a written complaint and based upon the allegations levelled therein, an FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 0157/2016 on 21.08.2016, under Sections 323, 376, 420 IPC at Police Station-Haiderganj, District- Faizabad (now Ayodhya).
5. It is further stated that as per the contents of FIR, which is on record as Annexure No. 2 to the instant application, the applicant has been establishing physical relations with the complainant/victim for the last two years on the pretext of false promise of marriage.
6. The FIR further indicates that on 10.08.2016, the applicant called the complainant/victim at about 11 P.M. in the night to a garden near 'Kuandad' and when she reached there, the applicant raped her. Thereafter, the applicant also established physical relations with the complainant/victim against her wishes.
7. The FIR further indicates that the complainant/victim lodged the FIR on refusal by the applicant to solemnize marriage with her and also being assaulted by the applicant and his mother & sister by kicks and fists.
8. It is further stated that at the relevant point of time, the complainant/victim was aged about 19 years, as appears from her statements recorded during investigation and as per medical opinion, the victim was aged about 18 years on 27.08.2011.
9. It is further stated that in the aforesaid background of the case, the case of the applicant No. 1 and also applicant No. 2, who is the sister of the applicant No. 1 and against whom the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer after investigation, is squarely covered by the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2021 SCC Online SC 181; Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 1032.
10. It is also stated that during pendency of the trial, the applicant and complainant/victim solemnized marriage on 20.11.2020 and out of their wedlock, a male child namely master Anaga was also born on 02.12.2021 and now the whole family is living happily under one roof. In these circumstances, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter else the matrimonial life of the applicant and complainant/victim as well as their minor would be ruined and shattered.
11. The complainant/victim present before this Court also supported the case the applicant(s).
12. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations on the issue related to establishing physical relationship on assurance of marriage made in the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar (supra); Deepak Gulati (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar (supra) and the present age of the complainant/victim, this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court in view of the aforesaid including the nature of relationship between the applicant and the opposite party No. 2/victim as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the
The court can quash criminal proceedings when the parties reconcile and marry, preventing abuse of process and securing justice.
The court can quash criminal proceedings if they are based on a settlement between parties and no purpose is served in keeping them pending.
The distinction between consensual relationships and rape allegations is critical; failure to fulfill a marriage promise alone does not constitute rape absent of proof of bad faith or coercion.
Consent in sexual offenses must be based on clear understanding; misconceptions or coercion can vitiate it, but the facts must support the allegations sufficiently to sustain charges.
The court ruled that allegations of rape under Section 376 IPC were not established, allowing quashing of the FIR based on the consensual nature of the relationship and the parties' subsequent marria....
The inherent powers of the court can quash criminal proceedings when the victim expresses no desire to proceed, especially following reconciliation and marriage, despite serious charges under IPC.
Offence under Section 376 IPC is non-compoundable – By simply entering into compromise, charges cannot be said to have been mitigated or quashed as offence is against dignity of women as well as publ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.