AJAY MOHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8195 of 2026

Ajay Mohan
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)               :    Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :    G.A., Purushottam Pandey

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

1. Second Short counter affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2
is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri R.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam
Pandey, 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 charge sheet dated 20.08.2025 and cognizance order dated 29.09.2025 as
well as entire proceeding of Special Case No.120 of 2025 (State Vs. Ajay
Mohan) arising out of case crime no.323 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 69,
137 (2), 333 B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2), 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act, Police
Station- Swar, District-Rampur, pending in the court of Special Judge
(POCSO Act-Anany), Rampur on the basis of compromise.

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 23.04.2026. The photographs of the marriage
      have been appended along with second short counter affidavit dated
      29.04.2026.

      (ii) The applicant and the victim, after solemnization of their
      marriage, are living together as husband and wife under the same
      roof.
                                                         NA528 No. 8195 of 2026
                                2


      (iii) The applicant and the victim, including the first informant,
      have entered into a compromise on 07.02.2026, a copy of which
      has been appended as Annexure No. 7 to the application. The
      aforesaid compromise has been admitted by opposite party no. 2,
      and the same has been verified by the learned trial court on
      30.03.2026, in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in
      Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 8195 of 2026. A copy of
      the compromise verification report has been appended at pages 10
      to 13 of the short counter affidavit dated 02.04.2026. The trial
      court recorded the statements of the first informant as well as the
      victim on 30.03.2026, wherein it was admitted that the compromise
      had taken place and that the marriage between the applicant and
      the victim was fixed.

      (iv) The applicant and the victim have solemnized their marriage on
      23.04.2026 and are living together as husband and wife. The
      compromise between the parties has already taken place and has
      been verified by the learned trial court on 30.03.2026. Therefore,
      the proceedings against the applicant are liable to 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, compromise and its
verification on 30.03.2026.

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

8. Undoubtedly, the marriage between the applicant and the victim has
taken place on 23.04.2026. A compromise has also been entered into
between the parties, which has been verified by the learned trial court on
30.03.2026.

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
                                                             NA528 No. 8195 of 2026
                                 3


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.

     Mr. M.P.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
                                                      NA528 No. 8195 of 2026
                           4


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.
                                                             NA528 No. 8195 of 2026
                                  5


     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."

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
                                                             NA528 No. 8195 of 2026
                                    6


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.
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
                                                                                                      NA528 No. 8195 of 2026
                                                                           7


                                              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."

                                    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 charge sheet dated 20.08.2025 and cognizance order dated
                                    29.09.2025 as well as entire proceeding of Special Case No.120 of 2025
                                    (State Vs. Ajay Mohan) arising out of case crime no.323 of 2025, under
                                    Sections 65(1), 69, 137 (2), 333 B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2), 5(L)/6 of
                                    POCSO Act, Police Station- Swar, District-Rampur, pending in the court of
                                    Special Judge (POCSO Act-Anany), Rampur, are hereby quashed against the
                                    applicant.

                                    17. No order as to costs.



                                                                                                 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Radhika




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