SHAHRUKHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28684 of 2025

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                      :    Krishna Gopal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                 :    Devashish Mitra, G.A.

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

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is taken on record.

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

3. Present application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed to quash
the entire proceedings as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 28.11.2024
alongwith cognizance/summoning order dated 20.5.2025 passed by learned
Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Special
Criminal Case No. 191 of 2025, State vs. Shahrukh, arising out of case crime
No. 980 of 2024, under sections 137 (2), 64 (2) (M), 87 B.N.S. and 5L/6 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012, Police Station
Baradari, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO
Act Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly.

4. 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 04.10.2024. A copy of nikahnama has also
      been appended as Annexure No.7 to the applicant.

      (ii) The applicant and the victim, after solemnization of their
      marriage, are living together as husband and wife under the same
      roof.

      (iii) The applicant and the victim, including the first informant of the
      present case, have entered into a compromise. A copy of the
                                                        NA528 No. 28684 of 2025
                                2


      compromise deed has been appended as Annexure No. 8 to the
      application. Another compromise deed was filed by the applicant, the
      victim, and the first informant of the present case before the trial
      court, which was verified by the learned trial court vide order dated
      20.01.2026, in pursuance of the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by this
      Court.

      (iv) The victim did not level any allegation against the applicant when
      her statements were recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS,
      rather, she stated that she had been in love with the applicant for the
      last five years and had left her house on her own will, and that nikah
      was performed between the applicant and the victim on 04.10.2024.
      After the nikah, the applicant and the victim had been living together
      as husband and wife, and no untoward incident had taken place with
      her.

      (v) The applicant and the victim solemnized their marriage long ago.
      The parties have entered into a compromise, and the same has been
      verified by the learned trial court on 20.01.2026. A short counter
      affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first informant of the present
      case, wherein it has also been admitted that nikah was performed
      between the applicant and the victim, that they have entered into a
      compromise, and that the criminal proceedings against the applicant
      be quashed. Therefore, it is prayed that, in view of the compromise
      and the marriage between the applicant and the victim, the
      proceedings against the applicant be quashed.

5. 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.

6. The learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for
the applicant, but could not dispute the fact of marriage, and compromise
and its verification on 20.01.2026.

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

8. Undoubtedly, the marriage of the applicant and the victim has taken place
a long way back. The compromise has also taken place between the
                                                           NA528 No. 28684 of 2025
                                 3


applicant and the victim which has also been verified by the learned Trial
Court vide order dated 20.01.2026.

9. 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.

10. 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.
                                                         NA528 No. 28684 of 2025
                              4

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
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."
                                                           NA528 No. 28684 of 2025
                                  5


11. 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.

12. 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."

13. 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.

14. The Supreme Court in another judgment of Madhukar and Others vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Another, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.
                                                      NA528 No. 28684 of 2025
                               6


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 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
                                                                                          NA528 No. 28684 of 2025
                                                                   7


                                          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."

                                    15. 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.

                                    16. The entire proceedings as well as impugned charge-sheet dated
                                    28.11.2024 alongwith cognizance/summoning order dated 20.5.2025 passed
                                    by learned Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly
                                    in Special Criminal Case No. 191 of 2025, State vs. Shahrukh, arising out of
                                    case crime No. 980 of 2024, under sections 137 (2), 64 (2) (M), 87 B.N.S.
                                    and 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012,
                                    Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Special
                                    Judge POCSO Act Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

                                    17. No order as to costs.




                                                                                         (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Radhika




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