JUDGMENT : 1. Sri Dharmendra Kumar Bhatt, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2 by way of filing vakalatnama and the same is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dharmendra Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Nirmal Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The instant application has been filed with a prayer to cancel the impugned summoning order against the appellant accused dated 01.02.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, District-Lucknow and kindly be pleased to quash the proceeding in charge-sheet no. 01, Sessions trial case no. 161 of 2021, case crime no. 302 of 2020, under Section 323, 506, 504, 376 of IPC and 3(2)5 of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Gudamba, District Lucknow. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that due to enmity, the FIR was initially lodged under Section 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Gomtinagar and thereafter the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer at P.S. Gudamba and after recording the statement of the victim, charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 323, 506, 504, 376 of IPC and 3(2)5 of the SC/ST Act. He submits that in fact due to certain misconception the First Information Report was lodged and due to animosity the statement has been given that rape has been committed with her. He added that thereafter both the parties sat together and they have amicably settled their dispute and now they are living as husband and wife therefore further criminal proceeding against the present appellant would vanish the matrimonial life of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021 and has placed reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 and the same are extracted hereunder:- "9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant." 6. He submits that the case of the present appellant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgement aforesaid, therefore, the submission is that the criminal proceeding against the present appellant/accused may be quashed. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submits on the basis of the affidavit that the opposite party no. 2, i.e., complainant, namely, Kalpana Gautam aged about 25 years is major and she was major at the time of the incident as well. He next submits that the version which has been mentioned in the appeal is correct and the complainant is legally wedded wife and she wants to live with the appellant. He added that due to some misconception, the First Information Report was lodged but now the appellant and the complainant is living as husband and wife and there is no dispute in between them, thus submission is that the further criminal proceeding against the appellant may be dropped. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contention on its factual matrix but he has no objection if the parties have settled their dispute in light of the ratio of the judgement in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another case. 9. In compliance of the order dated 29.05.2023, both the parties, i.e., the appellant and the complainant are present before this Court and on query being asked, they replied that due to animosity, the instant First Information Report was lodged though no such offence has ever been committed by the appellant and now they have settled their dispute and they are living as husband and wife and both are major. 10. 10. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it transpires that initially a First Information Report was lodged under Section 323, 506 of IPC in P.S. Gomtinagar and thereafter the matter was shifted to the P.S. Gudamba, wherein, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 323, 506, 504, 376 of IPC as well as 3(2)5 of the SC/ST Act. Prima facie, it is evident that the appellant as well as the complainant was major at the time of the alleged incident and which is also evident from the marksheet of High School Examination which has been annexed along with the affidavit dated 30.05.2023 submitted by the complainant. 11. This Court has also noticed the fact that the appellant as well as the opposite party no. 2/complainant is living together as husband and wife as is evident from the affidavit as well as their statement before the Court, therefore, the further criminal proceeding would be amount to harassment and the marital life of the appellant and the complainant shall be ruined. 12. Resultantly, the criminal proceeding of Sessions Trial Case No. 161 of 2021, Case Crime No. 302 of 2020, under Section 323, 506, 504, 376 of IPC and 3(2)5 of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Gudamba, District Lucknow is hereby quashed. 13. Consequences to follow. 14. Consigned to record.