Allahabad High Court
Praveen Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. … on 1 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44669 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 821 of 2025 Applicant :- Praveen Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sabir Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Islam Khan Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. HeardSriSabir Ali,learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Diwakar Singh, learned AGA for the State as well asMohd. Islam Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2and perused the record.
2. By means of instant application under Section482 CrPC, applicant has sought quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 63243 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0541 of 2024 under Sections 64, 351(2), 352 BNS & Section 67 of Informant Technology Act, P.S.-Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow and Charge sheet No. 01 of 2025 dated 27.02.2025 including summoning order dated 26.06.2025.
3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by opposite party No. 02 on 20.11.2024, alleging that under the allurement of marrying the informant, the applicant had made physical relations with her. On 07.10.2024, when the informant asked the applicant to get himself examined medically, the applicant declined to marry her. She also alleged that the applicant had threatened to spread her obscene video virally.
4. After an investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicant for the commission of offenses under Section 351 (2), 352 & 69 BNS and and allegation of commission of offences under Section 64 of BNS and 67 of the IT Act, could not be established. The trial court took cognizance of the offense on 26.06.2025. Soon thereafter, on 04.07.2025, the parties entered into an agreement stating that they had resolved their dispute with the intervention of some respectable persons, and opposite party No. 2 does not want any proceeding to continue against the applicant.
5. A supplementary affidavit on behalf of the applicant has been filed, annexing therewith copies of the victim’s statement recorded under sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, wherein she reiterated her earlier version. Some documents showing financial transactions between the parties and some chats between the parties have also been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. A copy of the medico-legal examination of the victim has also been annexed with the supplementary affidavit, and it does not contain any finding indicating the use of force by the applicant. The pathological examination report also does not support the allegation.
6. The opposite party No.2 has filed the short counter affidavit accepting the terms of the compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.
7. In the case of Bahori Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Another 2024 SCC OnLine All 4596, this Court has examined the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1186, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531, Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030 and has culled out the following principles from the aforesaid judgments:
“27. ……. the inherent powers of the High Courts recognized by Section 482 Cr. P.C. are wide and can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings, but the power has to be exercised judiciously and consciously. The High Courts can exercise their jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law is clearly made out. Such powers ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind the nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society; the seriousness of the injury,if any, the voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim, the conduct of the accused persons and the other relevant considerations. Though the Courts should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there is sufficient evidence which may lead to proving the charges. The High Court can quash the proceedings even in cases where the parties have entered into a settlement after conviction for a heinous offence carrying a maximum punishment for life. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast rule restricting the powers of the High Court to do substantial justice, as a restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may lead to grave injustice.”
8. In the case of K. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, an FIR under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 was registered alleging that the appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, which amounted to committing rape. He was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence. In appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the allegation against the appellant was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, whereas he had in fact married the prosecutrix and they had two children and they were being taken care of by the appellant and she was leading a happy married life. The prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. After taking into consideration these facts, the Hon’ble High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant in view of the subsequent events by observing that “This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.” However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also expressed that the order shall not be treated as a precedent.
9. Although, the FIR contains allegation of making physical relations under allurement of marrying; medico legal examination report is not indicative use of force; allegations of preparation of obscene video and making physical relations under threat to spread the obscene video virally could not be established during investigation and soon after the investigation, parties have entered into a compromise wherein opposite party No.2 stated that she does not want to continue the proceedings against the applicant and aforesaid facts have been stated by the opposite party No. 2 on oath before this Curt and her counsel has also supported the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.
10. In view of the law as discussed above, the application is allowed and theproceedings of Criminal Case No. 63243 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0541 of 2024 under Sections 64, 351(2), 352 BNS & Section 67 of Informant Technology Act, P.S.-Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow and Charge sheet No. 01 of 2025 dated 27.02.2025 including summoning order dated 26.06.2025,are herebyquashed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Order Date :- 1.8.2025
Vinay/-