NADEEM AHMADversusState of U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31362 of 2024

Nadeem Ahmad
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Manoj Kumar Mishra, Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amitesh Kumar Srivastava, G.A.

Court No. - 80
                 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1.

2. Present application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed to
quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.143 of 2024 (State vs.
Nadeem), arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2024, under Sections 363,
366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Teelamodh,
District Ghaziabad as well as chargesheet dated 24.05.2024 and
cognizance/summoning order dated 03.06.2024 on the basis of
compromise dated 21.08.2024

3. The following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for
the applicant:

      (i) The applicant and the victim of the present case have entered
      into matrimonial alliance on 29.01.2024, a copy of the Nikahnama
      has been appended as Annexure-9 to the application.

      (ii) A joint affidavit has been filed by the applicant and the victim
      of the present case on 05.12.2025 wherein, the fact of
      solemnization of the marriage on 29.01.2024 has been admitted.
      The aforesaid marriage has been accepted by the first informant and
      he has also filed his short counter affidavit stating therein that the
      dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties.

      (iii) The applicant and the victim, after solemnization of their
                                                        A482 No. 31362 of 2024
                               2


      marriage, are living together as husband and wife under the same
      roof.

      (iv) The applicant and the victim including the first informant, have
      entered into compromise on 21.08.2024 and the same has been
      verified by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 17.03.2026, a
      copy of the compromise deed as well as verification report has been
      appended alongwith supplementary affidavit dated 24.03.2026.

      (v) The parties have solemnized their marriage a long way back and
      they are living together as husband and wife and the parties have
      entered into compromise, which has been verified by the order
      dated 17.03.2026, therefore, proceedings against the applicant be
      quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has put his appearance and
accepted the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant and
admitted this fact that the marriage of the victim has been solemnized
with the applicant.

5. The learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel
for the applicant, but could not dispute the fact of marriage, compromise
and its verification on 17.03.2026.

6. I have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

7. Undoubtedly, the marriage of the applicant and the victim has taken
place a long way back and the compromise has also taken place between
the applicant and the victim, which has also been verified by the learned
Trial Court vide order dated 17.03.2026

8. Reference may be made to the judgements of Supreme Court in K.
Dhandapani Vs. The State By the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and other Vs. The State of Rajasthan,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 433, wherein, the Apex Court quashed the
criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that accused had
solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and court cannot turn a blind
eye to the said fact. In the submission of learned counsel for applicant, the
                                                       A482 No. 31362 of 2024
                               3


ratio laid down by Apex Court in aforementioned judgements is squarely
applicable to the facts of the present case. As such, no exception can be
carved out in the case of present applicants with reference to the
aforementioned judgements of Supreme Court inasmuch as the applicant
has also solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and the parties are
happily living together. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for
applicant submits that the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be
sustained in law as well as fact and therefore, the same is liable to be
quashed by this Court.

9. The Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani (supra) and Mafat Lal
(Supra) also quashed the proceedings against the accused therein on the
grounds that the accused had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix
and secondly, the court cannot turn a blind eye to the said fact. Since the
judgement rendered by Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani (supra)
is a short one, therefore, the same is reproduced in its entirety:

     "Leave granted.

     The appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix
     belongs to Valayar community, which is a most backward
     community in the State of Tamilnadu. He works as a
     woodcutter on daily wages in a private factory. FIR was
     registered against him for committing rape 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. He was convicted after trial for
     committing the said offences and sentenced to undergo
     rigorous Reason: imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the
     Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur on
     31.10.2018. The High Court, by an order dated 13.02.2019,
     upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the
     appellant has filed this appeal.

     Mr. M.P.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the
     appellant, submitted that allegation against him was that he
     had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of
                                                   A482 No. 31362 of 2024
                          4


marrying her. He stated that, in fact, he married the
prosecutrix and they have two children.

The appellant submitted that this Court should exercise its
power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ought to do
complete justice and it could not be in the interest of justice to
disturb the family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.

After hearing the matter for some time on 08 th March, 2022,
we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the
prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the
prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has
categorically stated that she has two children and they are
being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy
married life.

Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the
State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the
ground that 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. He
argued that the marriage between the appellant and the
prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the
said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping
punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will
take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court
grants relief to him.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of
the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the
appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to
be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been
brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its
eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of
the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed
about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with
the maternal uncle.
                                                        A482 No. 31362 of 2024
                               5


     For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the conviction and
     sentence of the appellant is set aside in the peculiar facts of the
     case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The appeal is
     accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall
     stand disposed of.

     In case, the appellant does not take proper care of the
     prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can
     move this Court for modification of this Order."

10. The Apex Court in the case of Shriram Urav Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No(S). 41/2021, decided on
10.01.2025, also quashed the conviction as well as the sentence imposed
upon the appellant on the ground that the appellant/accused and the
complainant/victim had married each other.

11. Similarly, in the case of Dasari Srikant vs. State of Telangana
reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 936, wherein, under identical
circumstances and almost identical provisions the Supreme Court quashed
the proceedings instituted against the accused therein. The relevant
paragraph 8 to 10 of the Dasari Srikant (supra) read as under:-

     "8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married
     each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the
     High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the
     accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his
     matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger.

     9. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers
     under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the
     conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned
     trial Court and modified by the High Court.

     10. As a result, the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2023
     passed by the High Court and judgment dated 9th April, 2021
     passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside."

12. In another judgment of Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and
                                                     A482 No. 31362 of 2024
                             6


Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court quashed the proceedings of offence, punishable under Section
354A, 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the ground of
marriage between the accused and the victim. It was brought on record
that from the wedlock between the accused and the victim, two children
were born, whose documents were produced alongwith the appeal. The
Apex Court in this case quashed the proceedings on the ground that no
purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution as it would cause
undue harassment to the appellant/accused and the victim and their
children.

13. The Supreme Court in another judgment of Madhukar and Others
vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No. 7212 of 2025, alongwith Prabhakar vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of
2025, quashed the proceedings of case crime no.302 of 2023, dated
20.11.2023, under sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as quashed the proceedings of
case crime no.304 of 2023, dated 21.11.2023, under sections 376, 354-A,
354-D, 509 and 506 IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties.
Paragraph nos.6, 7 and 8 of the said judgment are reproduced herein:-

     "6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section
     376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature.
     Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on
     the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged
     and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the
     Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is
     not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with
     reference to the facts of each case.

     7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual
     situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including
     Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier
     FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends
     a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the
                                                                                               A482 No. 31362 of 2024
                                                                        7


                                               second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More
                                               importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has
                                               unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She
                                               has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal
                                               life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only
                                               disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative
                                               nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including
                                               through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the
                                               prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also
                                               amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual
                                               understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the
                                               trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only
                                               prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant,
                                               and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive
                                               outcome.

                                               8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and
                                               circumstances of this case, and taking into account the
                                               categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of
                                               the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of
                                               the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and
                                               would only amount to abuse of process."

                                    14. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
                                    aforementioned judgments as well as facts of the case, the present
                                    application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed.

                                    15. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.143 of 2024 (State vs.
                                    Nadeem), arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2024, under Sections 363,
                                    366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Teelamodh,
                                    District Ghaziabad as well as chargesheet dated 24.05.2024 and
                                    cognizance/summoning order dated 03.06.2024, are hereby quashed.

                                    16. No order as to costs.



                                                                                          (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    April 23, 2026
                                    Nitendra




Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad