Allahabad High Court

SONUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that, owing to the marriage and compromise between the parties and in line with Supreme Court precedents, the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

Summary

The applicant Sonu filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the criminal case (Cr. No.9 of 2024) pending before the Special Judge (POCSO) in Bareilly, which alleged offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that he had married the victim, a child was born out of the wedlock, and the parties had reached a compromise, all of which were verified by the trial court. The opposite party and the State opposed the prayer but could not dispute the marriage, birth of a child, and the compromise. Relying on a series of Supreme Court judgments where prosecutions were quashed on the ground of marriage and settlement, the High Court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose and would harass the family. Consequently, the court allowed the application and quashed the entire criminal proceedings.

Issues considered

The effect of a marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix on the continuance of criminal prosecution under IPC and POCSO provisions.
Whether a compromise/settlement between the parties can justify quashing of serious offences such as rape under Section 376 IPC and POCSO.
The applicability of Section 528 of the BNSS to quash pending criminal proceedings.
The scope of the court's power under Section 482 CrPC to intervene and quash proceedings in the interest of justice.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 376
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4(2)

Subjects

marriage
compromise
quashing of criminal proceedings
POCSO Act
Section 528 BNSS
Section 482 CrPC
Supreme Court precedent
abuse of process

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 47094 of 2025

Sonu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhaskar Bhadra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajveer Chaurasiya, 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. 3 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.9 of 2024 (State vs.
Sonu), arising out of Case Crime No.129 of 2023, under Sections 363,
366, 376 IPC & Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Hafizganj,
District Bareilly, pending in the court of Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bareilly as well as impugned
cognizance order dated 28.10.2023 and Chargesheet dated 28.05.2023.

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

(ii) A baby girl was born out of the wedlock of the applicant and the
victim.

(iii) The applicant and the victim, after solemnization of their
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 20.01.2026 which is appended as
NA528 No. 47094 of 2025
2

Annexure No. SA-1 of the supplementary affidavit and the same has
been verified by the learned Trial Court vide order dated
20.01.2026 in pursuance of order dated 26.11.2025 passed by this
Court.

(v) The parties have entered into compromise and the marriage has
been solemnized between the applicant and victim and a baby girl
was also born out of the wedlock of the applicant and the victim,
therefore, proceedings against the applicant be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 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
child and compromise and its verification on 20.01.2026.

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 a child was 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 20.01.2026.

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
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
NA528 No. 47094 of 2025
3

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
appellant and the prosecutrix.
NA528 No. 47094 of 2025
4

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
Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No(S). 41/2021, decided on
10.01.2025, also quashed the conviction as well as the sentence imposed
NA528 No. 47094 of 2025
5

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.

13. The Supreme Court in another judgment of Madhukar and Others
NA528 No. 47094 of 2025
6

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.

8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of
NA528 No. 47094 of 2025
7

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.9 of 2024 (State vs.
Sonu), arising out of Case Crime No.129 of 2023, under Sections 363,
366, 376 IPC & Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Hafizganj,
District Bareilly, pending in the court of Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bareilly as well as impugned
cognizance order dated 28.10.2023 and Chargesheet dated
28.05.2023, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…