MOHD. IKRAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22163 of 2025

Mohd. Ikram
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Irshad Ahmad, Ram Krishna Mishra,
                                Shadab Ali, Sudhanshu Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd Hamid

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

1. Heard Sri Shadab Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd.
Hamid, 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 charge sheet dated 17.11.2024 and cognizance order dated
24.02.2025 as well as entire proceeding of the Case No.74 of 2025 (State
Vs. Mohd. Ikram) arising out of Case Crime No.127 of 2024, under
Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bhot, District Rampur, pending in
the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) 1st
Rampur.

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 solemnized
      their marriage/ nikah on 16.12.2025. A copy of nikahnama has
      been appended along with short counter affidavit.

      (ii) The victim in the present case has filed a short counter affidavit
      stating that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on
      16.12.2025, and that they are presently living together as husband
      and wife. The dispute between the applicant and the victim has
      been amicably resolved and she does not want to proceed further.
                                                       NA528 No. 22163 of 2025
                               2


      (iii) The applicant and the victim of the present case have entered
      into matrimonial alliance on 16.12.2025 and they are living a
      happy married life, therefore, the 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 between the
applicant and the victim.

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 on 16.05.2025.

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
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
                                                            NA528 No. 22163 of 2025
                                  3


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 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
                                                              NA528 No. 22163 of 2025
                                    4


     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.

     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:-
                                                           NA528 No. 22163 of 2025
                                  5


     "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
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.
                                                            NA528 No. 22163 of 2025
                                    6


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 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.
                                                                                         NA528 No. 22163 of 2025
                                                                  7


                                    15. The charge sheet dated 17.11.2024 and cognizance order dated
                                    24.02.2025 as well as entire proceeding of the Case No.74 of 2025 (State
                                    Vs. Mohd. Ikram) arising out of Case Crime No.127 of 2024, under
                                    Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bhot, District Rampur, pending in
                                    the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) 1st
                                    Rampur, are hereby quashed against the applicant.

                                    16. No order as to costs.



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




Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad