Allahabad High Court

RAMU CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that, given the valid marriage and children, the prosecution could not be sustained and quashed the entire criminal proceedings.

Summary

The applicant, Ramu Chauhan, was charged under IPC sections 363, 366, 376 and POCSO Act sections 5 and 6 for offences arising from a 2021 crime. He filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the entire Sessions case, asserting that he had married the victim on 6 May 2022, that the marriage is registered, and that they have two children together. The victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC corroborated the marriage and the absence of any allegation against the applicant. The State could not dispute the marriage or the children but opposed the quash. Relying on a series of Supreme Court judgments that quashed prosecutions where the accused had married the prosecutrix, the Court held that the prosecution could not be sustained and ordered the entire proceedings to be quashed, with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

The effect of a subsequent marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix on the continuance of criminal proceedings under IPC and POCSO.
Whether Section 528 of the BNSS can be invoked to quash pending criminal proceedings in such circumstances.
Whether the victim’s consent and cohabitation negate the criminal liability for the alleged offences.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 376
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5, 6

Subjects

marriage
quash of criminal proceedings
POCSO
IPC
Section 528 BNSS
victim consent
Supreme Court precedent
abuse of process

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6881 of 2025

Ramu Chauhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Surendra Mohan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, and learned AGA for the State.

2. As per office report dated 18.02.2026 notice has been served personally
on opposite party no.2. As per counter affidavit filed by the learned AGA,
notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2/first informant of the
present case but none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

3. Present application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed to
quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.539 of 2023 (State vs.
Ramu Chauhan), chargesheet dated 31.08.2022, arising out of Case Crime
NO.838 of 2021, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5/6
POCSO Act, Police Station Kasya, District Kushinagar as well as
impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 15.04.2023, pending in the
court of learned Special Judge (POCSO) Court no.1, Kushinagar at
Padrauna.

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 06.05.2022 and their marriage was
registered on the same day in District Ghaziabad, a copy of the
marriage registration certificate has been appended as Annexure-8
to the application.
NA528 No. 6881 of 2025
2

(ii) Two children were born out of the wedlock of the applicant and
the victim and Aadhar Card of both the children have been
appended as Annexure-10 to this affidavit.

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

(iv) The victim in her statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has categorically admitted that she was in
love with the applicant and the marriage was solemnized between
them on 06.05.2022 and since then they are living together as
husband and wife under the same roof. No allegation has been
levelled against the applicant by the victim.

(v) The application has been filed by the applicant-accused for
quashing of the proceedings and the same has been sworn by the
victim of the present case and she had admitted this fact that the
victim and the applicant 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 living together as husband and
wife under the same roof, therefore, proceedings against the
applicant be quashed.

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.

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.

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
NA528 No. 6881 of 2025
3

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
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
NA528 No. 6881 of 2025
4

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.
NA528 No. 6881 of 2025
5

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
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
NA528 No. 6881 of 2025
6

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 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
NA528 No. 6881 of 2025
7

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 Sessions Case No.539 of 2023 (State vs.
Ramu Chauhan), chargesheet dated 31.08.2022, arising out of Case Crime
NO.838 of 2021, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5/6
POCSO Act, Police Station Kasya, District Kushinagar as well as
impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 15.04.2023, pending in the
court of learned Special Judge (POCSO) Court no.1, Kushinagar at
Padrauna, 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…