The court can quash criminal proceedings based on mutual consent and marriage when allegations arise from a consensual relationship, preventing abuse of process.

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

1. The applicant and opposite party No.2 are personally present before this Court today and have been duly identified by their respective counsel.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/ complainant/ victim.

3. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief:

"To quash the charge sheet dated 20-11-2023 and summoning order dated 19-12-2023 along with entire proceeding of Crl. Case No. 143444/2023 (State VS Dinesh Kumar and others) based on impugned charge sheet dated 27-10-2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 259/2023, U/S-376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Bijnaur, District- Lucknow, on the basis of compromise dated 19-07-2024 and marriage certificate dated 18-07-2024."

4. It is stated that a perusal of allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR lodged on 27.10.2023 registered as F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0259 of 2023 at Police Station- Bijnaur, District- Lucknow, under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. by the opposite party no.2/ complainant/ victim would indicate that applicant and victim were known to each other and they were having affair and both were intended to marry each other, however, for some reasons, the applicant could not solemnize marriage with the opposite party no.2/ complainant/ victim and therefore being annoyed, opposite party no.2/ complainant/ victim lodged the aforesaid FIR making allegations therein to attract the offence under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. In continuation, it is stated that as per this FIR, which is basis of pending criminal proceedings, as also the statement(s) of the victim recorded during investigation in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C . as also made before Doctor during medical examination and the copy of the messages annexed from Page No.76 to 98 would also indicate that applicant and opposite party no.2/ complainant/ victim were having affair.

5. It is further stated that the aforesaid documents also indicate that the opposite party no.2/ complainant/ victim alleged that on assurance of marriage the applicant established physical relations with her. It is stated that the present case of the applicant is fully 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 and being so the proceedings in issue are liable to be interfered by this Court.

6. Further submission is that during the pendency of the present case, the marriage of applicant and opposite party no.2/ complainant/ victim was solemnized on 18.07.2024 at Arya Samaz Mandir situated at Shivpuri, Kamta, Chinahat, Lucknow, which is evident from Annexure No.9 to the present application.

7. It is accordingly stated that in view of the facts of the case including the allegations levelled against the applicant which in nutshell are to the effect that on assurance of solemnizing marriage, the applicant established physical relations with the opposite party no.2/ complainant/ victim and observations of Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case of Sonu alias Subhas Kumar (supra); Deepak Gulati (supra) and Shambhu Kharwar (supra), which are in favour of the applicant, the proceedings in issue are liable to be quashed.

8. It is further stated that in fact the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2/ complainant/ victim only to pressurize the applicant for solemnizing the marriage.

9. 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 present age of the opposite party no. 3/victim i.e. about 23 years, this Court is of the vi