TINKU ALIAS RAM SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40582 of 2025

Tinku Alias Ram Singh
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)               :     Santosh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :     G.A., Girish Kumar Mishra

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 4 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 Special Case No.27 of 2000, arising out of
Case Crime NO.52 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC
and Section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Shahi, District Bareilly,
pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO 1st, Bareilly, as well as
chargesheet dated 23.05.2016 and cognizance/summoning order dated
10.06.2016.

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 14.03.2016, a copy of the marriage
      certificate has been appended as Annexure-2 to the application.

      (ii) Two children were born out of the wedlock of the applicant and
      the victim on 07.12.2021 and 08.12.2023 and their birth
      certificates have been appended at page 20 and 21 of the
      application.

      (iii) The applicant and the victim, after solemnization of their
      marriage, are living together as husband and wife under the same
      roof.
                                                       NA528 No. 40582 of 2025
                               2


      (iv) The applicant and the victim including the first informant, have
      entered into compromise on 24.07.2025 and the same has been
      verified by the learned trial court vide order dated 15.12.2025 in
      pursuance of the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by this Court, a
      copy of the compromise application and order dated 15.12.2025
      have been appended alongwith supplementary affidavit.

      (v) The parties have solemnized their marriage a long way back and
      two children have also born out of the wedlock of the applicant and
      the victim and they are residing together as husband and wife,
      therefore, the proceedings against the applicant be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 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, birth of
children and compromise and its verification on 15.12.2025.

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 children were born out of the wedlock of the
applicant and the victim. 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 15.12.2025.

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
                                                            NA528 No. 40582 of 2025
                                  3


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 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
                                                             NA528 No. 40582 of 2025
                                   4


    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."

10. The Apex Court in the case of Shriram Urav Vs. State of
                                                           NA528 No. 40582 of 2025
                                  5


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
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.
                                                            NA528 No. 40582 of 2025
                                    6


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 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.
                                                                                                     NA528 No. 40582 of 2025
                                                                           7


                                               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 Special Case No.27 of 2000, arising out of
                                    Case Crime NO.52 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC
                                    and Section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Shahi, District Bareilly,
                                    pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO 1st, Bareilly, as well as
                                    chargesheet dated 23.05.2016 and cognizance/summoning order dated
                                    10.06.2016, are hereby quashed.

                                    16. No order as to costs.



                                                                                                 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Nitendra




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