Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 187 (ALL)

Devesh Pandey v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

SAURABH LAVANIA

body2025
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. 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 future prospects of the opposite party No. 2/victim would be affected 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. 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, as also 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 Tamil Nadu, 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. 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 entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2016, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed. 13. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. 14. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.