JUDGMENT : Saurabh Lavania, J. 1. Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Balendu Pandey, Advocate alongwith Vakalatnama on behalf of private opposite party no.2 in the Court today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Balendu Pandey, learned counsel for private opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record. 3. The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief:- "Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the Impugned Charge sheet dated 16.01.2024 along with the entire proceedings of the Session Trial No- 2229 of 2024 arising out from the Case Crime No-436/2023 U/s- 363/366/376 IPC & 3/4 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 P.S. Vibhuti khand, District-Lucknow "State of U.P. Vs Kishan Mishra" pending before the Learned Court of Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Main, Lucknow in the interest of justice." 4. Applicant/Kishan Mishra and opposite party no.3/victim are present before this Court. The applicant has been identified by Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate, whereas victim/opposite party no.3 has been identified by Sri Balendu Pandey, Advocate. 5. It is stated that applicant and victim/opposite party no.3 were in affair and victim/opposite party no.3 was inclined to marry him and both were known to each other. 6. It is further stated that the relationship of victim/opposite party no.3 and applicant was not acknowledged/accepted by the family members of victim/opposite party no.3 and therefore an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2, father of victim/opposite party no.3, on 28.08.2023 registered as FIR No.0436/2023 making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. As per this FIR, the victim/opposite party no.3, who was 17 years old and a student of Class-XII, was enticed away by the applicant on 25.08.2023. 7. It is further stated that according to the statement(s) of the victim recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C ., the applicant and victim/opposite party no.3, aged about 18 years, were having affair and due to same she, on her own volition, left her house on 19.08.2023 and thereafter solemnized marriage with applicant on19.08.2023, on her own volition, in Arya Samaj Mandir, Lucknow. 8. 8. It is further stated that in fact the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 (father of victim) only to pressurize the applicant and other family members on the issue of solemnizing the marriage with the victim and during the pendency of pending criminal proceedings in issue the marriage of the applicant and victim was solemnized on 19.08.2023 and therefore now the opposite party no.2/informant also does not want to continue with the case. 9. It is also stated that the victim/opposite party no.3 in her statements in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C . have not supported the prosecution case and the same is evident from the copy of the statement annexed as Annexures No.3 and 4 to the present application. 10. It is also stated that taking note of the date of birth indicated by opposite party no.2 the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. &Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. 11. It is further submitted that according to date of birth indicated in the FIR, the basis of pending proceeding, is 25.06.2006 and according to same the victim/opposite party no.3 at the time of incident as also at the time of lodging the FIR was aged about 17 years old and to establish that the date of birth as indicated in school record was correctly mentioned there is no material evidence available with the prosecution, as would appear from the counter affidavit of opposite party no.2 (father of the victim) and thus, in view of the facts of the instant case, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit , reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604 , State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh , reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 , Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397 , shall be extended in favour of the applicant and the opposite party no.3/victim both. 12. It is further stated that presently the applicant and victim are living as husband and wife under one roof happily. 13. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397 , shall be extended in favour of the applicant and the opposite party no.3/victim both. 12. It is further stated that presently the applicant and victim are living as husband and wife under one roof happily. 13. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter else entire matrimonial life of applicant and victim/opposite party no.3. 14. The victim/opposite party no.3 and informant/opposite party no.2 present before this Court supported the case of the applicant. 15. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra) , Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699 ; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293 ; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor , (2013) 3 SCC 330 ; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435 , according to which, inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C . (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, and also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531 , Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235 , B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013 (4) SCC 58 , Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 , Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008 (9) SCC 677 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008 (16) SCC 1 , State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019 (5) SCC 688 , Narindra Singh and others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013 (4) SCC 58 , Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 , Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008 (9) SCC 677 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008 (16) SCC 1 , State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019 (5) SCC 688 , Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584 , Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings in issue, quoted above in prayer clause, are hereby quashed. 16. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.