# Ashwani Anand v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1389
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-21
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 37031 of 2025
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashwani-anand-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54844
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to
quash criminal proceedings under Sections 363,
366 IPC and Sections 11/12 POCSO Act, in light
of the victim's affidavit, her denial of allegations,
and subsequent valid
marriage with the
applicant after attaining majority.

HEADNOTES
1390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161, 164, 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 - Sections 183, 528 - Indian Penal
Code,
1860
- Sections
363,
366
-
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 11, 12 -
Constitution of India - Article 142-
Application u/s 528 BNSS - for quashing the
charge-sheet
as
well
as
entire
criminal
proceedings - arising out of a Case Crime -
offences under Sections 363, 366 IPC and
Sections 11/12 POCSO Act - FIR lodged alleging
abduction of minor girl - victim's statements
under Sections 161 & 164 CrPC/183 BNSS
denying
allegations,
claiming
voluntary
departure,
asserting
majority
-
marriage
solemnized and registered under U.P. Marriage
Registration Rules, 2017 - victim filed affidavit
supporting
applicant
-
applicant
sought
quashing under Section 528 BNSS - State
opposed citing POCSO as non-compoundable
offence against society - reliance placed on K.
Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) -
Court relied upon decision rendered in cases of
K. Dhandapani v. State (2022), Mafat Lal v.
State of Rajasthan (2022), Dasari Srikant v.
State of Telangana (2024), Mahesh Mukund
Patel v. State of U.P. (2025), Ankit Jatav v.
State of Rajasthan (2023) - court also
emphasized inherent powers of High Court
under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS to secure
ends of justice - held - continuation of
prosecution would amount to harassment and
waste of judicial resources - accordingly,
Application
allowed,
proceedings
quashed.(Para - 15, 16, 20, 21, 25)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED

## Text

11 All. Ashwani Anand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1389
that the accused is guilty of taking the
minor out of the keeping of the lawful
guardian merely because after she has
actually left her guardian's house or a
house where her guardian had kept her,
joined the accused and the accused helped
her in her design not to return to her
guardian's house by taking her along with
him from place to place. No doubt, the part
played by the accused could be regarded as
facilitating the fulfilment of the intention of
the girl. That part, in our opinion, falls
short of an inducement to the minor to slip
out of the keeping of her lawful guardian
and is, therefore, not tantamount to
"taking"."

13. A perusal of the statements
referred to above clearly indicate that an
offence under Section 363 IPC is not borne
out from the statements. In facts and
circumstances discussed above, it would be
difficult to hold that the victim was a minor
and was somehow induced by the applicant
to run away from the house and perform
marriage.

14. The law discussed by this Court in
Application under Section 528 BNSS
No.34844/2025 clearly brings out the view
that continuation of proceedings after the
applicant and the alleged victim have been
enjoying a happy married life would
tantamount to an abuse of the process of law
and would be unjust and against the interest
of justice. In the present case, two children
have also born from the wedlock and in such
circumstances, the ratio laid down in the
judgements of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court
and as interpreted by this Court in
Application U/s 528 BNSS No.34844/2025 is
clearly applicable to the facts of this case

15. In view of the facts and
circumstances as well as the law discussed
above, this Court comes to the irresistible
conclusion that the chargesheet and the
entire proceedings arising from the case
crime deserve to be quashed.

16. Accordingly, the Charge sheet
no.154/16 dated 18.10.2016 and the entire
proceedings of Case Crime No.917/2015
under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)n IPC and 6
POCSO
Act,
P.S.
Baradari,
District
Bareilly, pending before the Special Judge,
POCSO Act, Court No.2, Bareilly, is
hereby quashed.

17.
The
instant
application
is,
accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1389
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 37031 of 2025

Ashwani Anand ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anjani Kumar Shukla, Prakash Chand
Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the High Court should exercise its
inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to
quash criminal proceedings under Sections 363,
366 IPC and Sections 11/12 POCSO Act, in light
of the victim's affidavit, her denial of allegations,
and subsequent valid
marriage with the
applicant after attaining majority.

HEADNOTES
1390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161, 164, 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 - Sections 183, 528 - Indian Penal
Code,
1860
- Sections
363,
366
-
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 11, 12 -
Constitution of India - Article 142-
Application u/s 528 BNSS - for quashing the
charge-sheet
as
well
as
entire
criminal
proceedings - arising out of a Case Crime -
offences under Sections 363, 366 IPC and
Sections 11/12 POCSO Act - FIR lodged alleging
abduction of minor girl - victim's statements
under Sections 161 & 164 CrPC/183 BNSS
denying
allegations,
claiming
voluntary
departure,
asserting
majority
-
marriage
solemnized and registered under U.P. Marriage
Registration Rules, 2017 - victim filed affidavit
supporting
applicant
-
applicant
sought
quashing under Section 528 BNSS - State
opposed citing POCSO as non-compoundable
offence against society - reliance placed on K.
Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) -
Court relied upon decision rendered in cases of
K. Dhandapani v. State (2022), Mafat Lal v.
State of Rajasthan (2022), Dasari Srikant v.
State of Telangana (2024), Mahesh Mukund
Patel v. State of U.P. (2025), Ankit Jatav v.
State of Rajasthan (2023) - court also
emphasized inherent powers of High Court
under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS to secure
ends of justice - held - continuation of
prosecution would amount to harassment and
waste of judicial resources - accordingly,
Application
allowed,
proceedings
quashed.(Para - 15, 16, 20, 21, 25)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
1. K. Dhandapani v. State (2022 SCC OnLine SC
1056)
2. Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2022 SCC
OnLine SC 433)
3. Dasari Srikant v. State of Telangana (2024
SCC OnLine SC 936)
4. Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P. (2025
SCC OnLine SC 614)
5. Ankit Jatav v. State of Rajasthan (2023,
Rajasthan HC)
6. K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2024, decided
28.10.2025)

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Constitution of India - U.P.
Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 -

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Quashing of proceedings - Inherent powers of
High Court - POCSO Act - non-compoundable
offence
- Victim's affidavit
- Matrimonial
relationship - Ends of justice - Hostile witness -
Abuse of process - Marriage after majority -
proceedings quashed.

CASE ARISING FROM
Criminal Case No. 121 of 2025 (State vs.
Ashwani Anand) - Arising out of Case Crime No.
36 of 2024, P.S. Rajepur, District Farrukhabad..

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri : Sri Anjani Kumar
Shukal, Prakash Chand Srivastava,
Counsel for Respondent(s): GA., AGA.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents.

2. This application under Section 528
BNSS has been preferred by the applicant
with the prayer to quash the charge sheet
dated 30.09.2024, cognizance order dated
08.04.2025 as well as entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 121 of 2025 (State vs.
Ashwani Anand) arising out of Case Crime
No. 36 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366
IPC and Section 11/12 of Prevention of
Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012,
P.S. Rajepur, District Farrukhababad.

FACTUAL MATRIX
11 All. Ashwani Anand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1391

3. Father of opposite party no. 4
lodged a First Information Report against
the applicant stating that, on 23.04.2024,
her daughter had been abducted by the
applicant. The matter was investigated into
by the police, consequent whereupon a
charge sheet was submitted on 30.09.2024
and cognizance was taken on 08.04.2025
under the aforesaid provisions.

4.
The
present
application
is
supported by affidavit of opposite party
no. 4, i.e. the alleged victim of the
offence. In the affidavit it is stated, as also
stands reflected from record, that on
16.08.2024, statement of opposite party no.
4 was recorded under Section 161 CrPC,
wherein she denied the allegations levelled
in the FIR and stated that on 23.04.2024
she had herself left her home without
telling anyone and that she stayed in a Girls
P.G. at Ghaziabad and did not stay with the
applicant. She also denied any physical
relationship in between her and the
applicant. As regards her age, in her
statement under Section 164 CrPC/183 of
BNSS, she stated her age as 20 years,
though according to her Adhar Card the
same is reflected as 17 years. The mother
of opposite party no. 4 also made her
statement before the Investigating Officer
that because of intimacy in between her
daughter and the applicant, she no longer
wanted to remain under any kind of
relationship with her daughter.

5. Admittedly, marriage has been
performed in between the applicant and the
alleged victim on 23.06.2025 and the same
has been registered on 24.06.2025 under
U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017;
certificate of marriage is annexed as
Annexure No. 6. It is not in dispute that on
the date of marriage, opposite party no. 4
had attained age of majority.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
THE APPLICANT

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that since the applicant and
opposite party no. 4 are residing together in
matrimonial relationship, the proceedings
of the aforesaid case may be quashed,
particularly when the alleged victim has
filed her own affidavit in support of the
application U/s 528 BNSS.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE

7. Learned AGA has vehemently
opposed the prayer made and it is
contended that since offence under POCSO
Act is an offence against the society and
non-compoundable, the proceedings cannot
be quashed merely based upon compromise
or the affidavit of the victim. It has been
submitted that when the offence giving rise
to this case was committed, it was an
offence
and,
therefore,
based
upon
subsequent events, an accused cannot be
discharged nor the proceedings should be
quashed. Reliance has been placed upon
recent decision of Honble Apex Court in
K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2024,
decided on 28.10.2025.

DISCUSSION

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, no dispute is found as regards
solemnization of marriage between the
parties on 23.06.2025 after the opposite
party no. 4 had attained age of majority. In
light of the very fact that affidavit in
support of the present application has been
filed by opposite party no. 4 with a
statement that entire allegations levelled
against the applicant were false and in
1392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statement under Section 164 CrPC/183
BNSS also, prosecution version was not
supported by her, it has to be seen as to
whether the prayer made by the applicant
can be granted.

Few judgments on the issue involved

9. Hon'ble 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, quashed the criminal
prosecution of accused therein on the
ground he had solemnized marriage with
the prosecutrix even though, in
K.
Dhandapani (supra), the accused was her
maternal uncle, by observing that "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".

10. Similarly, in Dasari Srikant vs.
State of Telangana: (2024) SCC OnLine
SC 936, under identical circumstances, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the
proceedings instituted against the accused
therein. The relevant paragraphs 8 to 10 of
the judgment 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."

11. In Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State
of U.P. and Others: 2025 SCC OnLine SC
614 also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed
the proceedings of offences, punishable under
Section 354A, 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and
Section 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act on the
ground of marriage between the accused and
the victim. It was brought on record there that
from the wedlock between the accused and the
victim, two children were born. The Hon'ble
Apex Court observed 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.

12. In Ankit Jatav vs. State of
Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition)
No. 3075 of 2023, decided on 31.5.2023, a
Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court
quashed the proceedings under POCSO Act
on the ground that victim in her statement u/s
164 Cr.P.C. had stated that no offence was
committed by the accused and she willingly
left her house to get married to him.

13. As far as the judgment in K.
Kirubakaran (supra) cited on behalf of
11 All. Ashwani Anand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1393
the State, it was a case where the accused
was punished after trial and his appeal
against the judgment of conviction was
dismissed on 13.09.2021. In the meantime,
in May, 2021 i.e. pending appeal, the
accused and victim solemnized marriage
and were also blessed with a female girl
and Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
interest of justice, allowed the appeal by
observing that law must yield to the cause
of justice and that administration of law
is not divorced from practical realities. In
the same order, an observation was made
that since the accused had been found
guilty of a heinous offence, proceedings
in the said case based upon a compromise
between the accused and his wife could
not be quashed but, even then, the same
were quashed after making various
observations and in last paragraph of the
order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly
observed that the judgment shall not be
treated as precedent. Para 15 of the
judgment reads as under:-

"15. Needless to observe, this
order
is
rendered
in
the
unique
circumstances that have unfolded before
us and shall not be treated as precedent
for any other case."

14. The present case has reached
to this Court at the very initial stage
when cognizance order has been passed
on 08.04.2025 and even charges have
not been framed. Therefore, the facts
of the case are different from those
involved
in
the
case
of
K.
Kirubakaran (supra) and though the
said judgment cannot be treated as
precedent, as observed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court itself, even if the same
is followed in the facts of the present
case, it would be read in favour of the
applicant and not against him.

INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH
COURT

15. After discussing the judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court, this court proceeds
to discuss significance of inherent powers
by High Court in such matters. It would be
appropriate to refer the provisions under
Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS
as under:-

"482. Saving of inherent powers
of High Court.- Nothing in this Code
shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to
make such orders as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this Code, or
to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.

528. Saving of inherent powers
of High Court. Nothing in this Sanhita
shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to
make such orders as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this Sanhita,
or to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice."

16.
Simultaneous
reference
of
CONSTITUTIONAL
POWERS
OF
HON'BLE
SUPREME
COURT
conferred by Article 142 may also be
made. The same reads as under:-

"142. Enforcement of decrees
and orders of Supreme Court and orders
as to discovery, etc.- (1) The Supreme
Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction
may pass such decree or make such
order as is necessary for doing complete
justice in any cause or matter pending
before it, and any decree so passed or order
1394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
so made shall be enforceable throughout
the territory of India in such manner as may
be prescribed by or under any law made by
Parliament and, until provision in that
behalf is so made, in such manner as the
President may by order prescribe........"

THE
ONLY
OBJECTIVE
OF
CONSTITUTIONAL
COURTS:
TO
SECURE ENDS OF JUSTICE

17. Whenever question of grant or
refusal of grant any relief arises before the
High Court in exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS and
reference is made by either of the parties to
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court
referable to the power exercised under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it
is often argued, as has also been argued in
the
present
case,
that
quashing
of
proceedings under the POCSO Act or any
other Act where the offences punishable
are non-compoundable or that the offence
is against the State, though the Hon'ble
Supreme Court can pass any order but the
High Court would not be competent to
exercise identical powers.

18. A perusal of Article 142 indicates
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in exercise
of its jurisdiction, may pass any such order
or decree as is necessary for doing
complete justice in any cause or matter
pending before it. There cannot be any
quarrel about such power exercisable by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, being the Apex
Court of the country. However, when
question of exercising identical powers
arises before the High Court, particularly in
matters under Section 482 CrPC/ 528
BNSS, relief is often declined by the High
Court despite factual position of the matter
being identical to the one present before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while exercising
powers under Article 142. In such
matters, power of the High Court
notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code/Sanhita to secure ends of
justice, is either ignored or restricted in
itself or avoided from being exercised.

19. There is no need to refer
judgments elaborating inherent powers of
the High Court under the aforesaid
provisions, however, when the question is
either that of 'doing complete justice' by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article
142 or 'otherwise to secure the ends of
justice' by the High Court under Section
482 CrPC/528 BNSS, the same depends on
the factual scenario of the case. Under such
circumstances, non-exercise of inherent
powers would defeat the very purpose of
law and would render a written statutory
provision
for
inherent
powers
under
Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS a mere waste
paper work of the legislature and the words
'nothing in this Code/Sanhita shall be
deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court', would lose
their significance for all purposes.

PIOUS DUTY OF A JUDGE

20. Each case that comes before a
Judge has an element of a human problem
concerning the life, liberty, livelihood,
family, business, profession, work, shelter,
safety and security of the citizen. Many of
the litigants belong to the downtrodden and
weaker sections of society who are
defenceless, poor and ignorant. What
should be a Judges response when the
person who comes knocking at the doors
of his court is a woman, child, old aged,
infirm or disabled, having no resources
to fight? The judiciary cannot remain a
mere bystander or silent spectator but it
must become an active participant in the
11 All. Ashwani Anand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1395
judicial process ready to use law in the
service of social justice through a
proactive
goal-oriented
approach.
Judges must remain alive to the socioeconomic realities of Indian life to wipe
every tear from every eye. Faith in the
constitutional values and being always
ready to use law as an instrument for
achieving the goals of rendering justice,
must be the sole objective.

21. Judiciary being a very strong pillar
of our Constitution, the object of the courts
functional at any level, may be District
Court, High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, is to deliver justice; nothing more
and nothing less. We would fail in our duty
if we do not use the powers conferred upon
us by the Legislature, another equally
strong pillar of the Constitution, by self
imposed restrictions upon us forgetting
about the purpose for which we have been
blessed to occupy the pious position as a
Judge at any level. Purpose of any law
cannot be to create problems for the society
but to search out solutions to the same and
once any occasion arises to exercise
inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC or
528 BNSS or under any other provision of
law
where
discretion
also
plays
a
significant role, such power should be
exercised so as to discharge the pious
obligation cast upon us by the framers of
our Constitution.

WHEN DISTRICT COURTS ON
SAME FACTS CAN ACQUIT THE
ACCUSED, WHETHER HIGH COURT
IS POWERLESS TO BURY THE LIS

22. It is often argued, as has also been
argued in the present case, that when the
alleged victim, on oath, is supporting the
cause and prayer of the applicant for
quashing
the
proceedings
under
the
POCSO Act, what course should be left
open to be followed by the Courts. Learned
AGA has submitted that the applicant
should be put to full trial and it is only
when the prosecution leads its evidence and
the alleged victim/witness turns hostile
before the trial court, order of acquittal can
be passed by the trial court. Learned AGA
has also submitted that when the offence
giving rise to this case was committed, it
was an offence and, therefore, based upon
subsequent events, the proceedings cannot
be quashed.

23. If the said analogy is accepted,
then proceedings of no criminal case can be
quashed
either
based
upon
compromise/settlement
or
upon
the
statement on oath made by the victim of the
offence.
Matters
which
are
noncompoundable as per the provisions of
CrPC/BNSS, regularly come before the
courts and the High Courts working in all
over the country regularly quash the
proceedings of such criminal cases based
upon settlement and the law in this regard
is already well settled. While do so, it is not
seen as to when the act prejudicial to the
interest of the victim was committed by an
offender, the same was an offence, rather
what becomes significant is the intention of
the parties to close the criminal litigation
based upon the settlement. As to why such
analogy should be applied only on pick and
choose basis when quashing of proceedings is
sought based upon compromise, is not
understandable and, therefore, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the High Court in
exercise of inherent powers should focus only
and only on securing the ends of justice in the
given facts of the matter and should not
restrict exercise of its inherent powers.

24. Where there is already a statement
on oath by the alleged victim, made on
1396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affidavit in support of the prayers made in
the application, ignoring the same and then
putting the applicant to trial dragging both
sides, i.e. prosecution and defence, for
months and years together for the purposes
of getting recorded the statement of a
hostile witness/prosecutrix/alleged victim,
and then, based upon the same, waiting for
the concerned court to pass a judgment of
acquittal, would be an irony of fate. It
would be surprising to see as to why
precious time and resources of judicial
system should be wasted in adopting such a
recourse where result is bound to be the
same,
i.e.,
discharge/acquittal
of
the
accused.
Further,
there
are
multiple
practical difficulties faced and pains
sufferred by the litigants in District Courts,
to which at least this Court cannot turn its
face. Compelling a lady in such matters to
visit court premises for months and years
for the purposes of getting her own
husband acquitted where he is facing threat
of punishment for doing some wrong with
his wife which she does not admit, would
be an instrument of harassment. Apart from
making
recurring
expenditures
and
sometimes something over and above what
is lawfully required, facing all evil eyes,
criticism and all sorts of comments which
may be against dignity of a woman, can
also not be ignored. Therefore, if the
Sessions Court can acquit an accused of a
non-compoundable offence merely based
upon
the
statement
of
a
hostile
victim/witness, as to why the High Court,
at any stage of proceedings, cannot bury
the lis by relying upon the similar statement
of the alleged victim made on oath/affidavit
or by appearing in person before the High
Court itself, is something which is not
understandable. Therefore, self imposed
restrictions on exercise of inherent powers
under the Code would defeat the very
purpose of law.

CONCLUSION

25.
In
the
present
case,
once
matrimonial
relationship
between
the
applicant and the alleged victim pursuant to
marriage solemnized after attaining the age
of majority on 23.06.2025 and the same has
been registered on 24.06.2025 under U.P.
Marriage Registration Rules, 2017; the
certificate of marriage is also on record
and, further, the affidavit in support of the
application has been filed by the alleged
victim herself, it is a fit case where inherent
powers under Section 528 BNSS should be
exercised, otherwise this Court would fail
in its duty cast upon it by legislature to pass
an order to secure ends of justice.

26. The application is, accordingly,
allowed.

27. The proceedings of the aforesaid
case are hereby quashed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1396
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 39247 of 2018

Mubarak & Ors. .....Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Abhitab Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Santosh Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Magistrate's summoning order,
passed without recording reasons or judicial