# Riyaj v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1382
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-04
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No.27200 of 2017
- **Bench:** Rajiv Lochan Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/riyaj-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52751
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

under IPC and POCSO Act is justified when the
victim
was
nearly
19
years
old,
acted
voluntarily, and is now married with children.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 161, 164, 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363,
366, 376(2)n, 504, 506 - Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Section 6, 7, 8 - Application under Section
11 All. Riyaj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1383
482 CrPC - for quashing of the charge sheet -
arising out of a Case Crime under section 363,
366, 376(2)n IPC - victim claimed majority,
medical board assessed age about 19 years -
statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC
confirmed voluntary departure and marriage
with applicant - FIR lodged by father under
mistaken
impression,
later
resolved
by
compromise - Supreme Court precedent in S.
Varadrajan v. State of U.P. distinguished
"taking" from voluntary accompaniment - no
inducement or coercion proved, offence under
Section 363 IPC not made out - couple married,
living together with two children - continuation
of proceedings held abuse of process -
consequently, Chargesheet and entire case
quashed - application allowed.
(Para - 13, 14, 15, 16)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
S. Varadrajan v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 942
- Application U/s 528 BNSS No.34844/2025
(Wasiullah and others vs. State of U.P. and
others)

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Quashing of proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C. -
Voluntary marriage - Victim's age determination
- Abuse of process of law - Compromise
between parties.
CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No.917/2015 - Charge Sheet
No.154/16
dated
18.10.2016
-
Sections
involved: 363, 366, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6
POCSO Act - Police Station: Baradari, District
Bareilly.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Applicants: Shri Binod Kumar
Vishwakarma, Mohammad Waseem,
Counsel for Opposite Parties: G.A., Rajesh
Kumar Verma

## Text

1382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Officer. No material has been collected to
establish
even
a
remote
intention
attributable to the present applicant to
cause any damage or wrongful loss to the
alleged public property i.e. electric pole.

25. In this conspectus, as above, I am
of the considered view that no prima facie
case is made out against the present
applicant for the alleged offences for which
the present applicant has been summoned
to face the trial. The complicity of the
present applicant in the commission of the
offences under Sections 171-C I.P.C. and
3(2)(a) of the Act, 1984, prima facie are not
established by the material collected by the
Investigating Officer. Even witnesses have
simply reiterated the version of the F.I.R.
More so, no member of the public or
official of the Electricity Department or
local body have been investigated to
substantiate the allegation made in the
F.I.R. It would be an abuse of the process
of court to allow any action on the basis of
the F.I.R. in question and it would result in
injustice and prevent cause of justice.
Continuation
of
criminal
proceedings
against the present applicant based on the
F.I.R. and the charge sheet in question
would amount to abuse of the process of
court. The allegations made in the F.I.R.
are absurd and inherently improbable, for
the purposes of compelling the present
applicant to face the trial. On such
allegations, no prudent person could reach
a just conclusion that there exist sufficient
grounds
to
continue
the
criminal
proceedings against the accused. Thus,
such proceedings are required to be
quashed to prevent the abuse of the process
of Court and to secure the ends of justice.

26. Resultantly, instant application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. succeeds and is
allowed.
The
entire
proceedings
of
Criminal Case No. 2715 of 2015 (State vs.
Daya Shankar Mishra@Dayalu Mishra)
arising out of Case Crime No. 14 of 2012,
under Sections 171-C I.P.C. and 3(2)(a) of
the Act, 1984, Police Station Kotwali
Sadar, District Varanasi, including the
charge-sheet, cognizance order, and all
consequential proceedings pending before
the court below are herby quashed.

27. Let order of the date shall be
transmitted to the court below for necessary
action.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1382
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

Application U/S 482. No.27200 of 2017

Riyaj ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Binod Kumar Vishwakarma, Mohammad
Waseem

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Rajesh Kumar Verma

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings
under IPC and POCSO Act is justified when the
victim
was
nearly
19
years
old,
acted
voluntarily, and is now married with children.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 161, 164, 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363,
366, 376(2)n, 504, 506 - Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Section 6, 7, 8 - Application under Section
11 All. Riyaj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1383
482 CrPC - for quashing of the charge sheet -
arising out of a Case Crime under section 363,
366, 376(2)n IPC - victim claimed majority,
medical board assessed age about 19 years -
statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC
confirmed voluntary departure and marriage
with applicant - FIR lodged by father under
mistaken
impression,
later
resolved
by
compromise - Supreme Court precedent in S.
Varadrajan v. State of U.P. distinguished
"taking" from voluntary accompaniment - no
inducement or coercion proved, offence under
Section 363 IPC not made out - couple married,
living together with two children - continuation
of proceedings held abuse of process -
consequently, Chargesheet and entire case
quashed - application allowed.
(Para - 13, 14, 15, 16)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
S. Varadrajan v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 942
- Application U/s 528 BNSS No.34844/2025
(Wasiullah and others vs. State of U.P. and
others)

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Quashing of proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C. -
Voluntary marriage - Victim's age determination
- Abuse of process of law - Compromise
between parties.
CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No.917/2015 - Charge Sheet
No.154/16
dated
18.10.2016
-
Sections
involved: 363, 366, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6
POCSO Act - Police Station: Baradari, District
Bareilly.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Applicants: Shri Binod Kumar
Vishwakarma, Mohammad Waseem,
Counsel for Opposite Parties: G.A., Rajesh
Kumar Verma

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Lochan
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Mohamsmad Waseem,
Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Rajesh Kumar Verma, Learned counsel for
the opposite party No.2 and Learned AGA
for the State.

2. The instant Application U/s 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following
reliefs:-

"It is therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to quash the
proceeding in pursuance of charge sheet
no.154/16 dated 18.10.2016 arising in
Case Crime No.917/2015 under Sections
363, 366, 376(2)n IPC and 6 POCSO Act,
P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly.

And further may be pleased to
stay the proceeding in pursuance of charge
sheet no.154/16 dated 18.10.2016 arising
in Case Crime No.917/2015 under Sections
363, 366, 376(2)n IPC and 6 POCSO Act,
P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly. And/or
pass any other order, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper under facts
and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the victim was a major at the
time of occurrence and no offence under
the POCSO Act is made out. The statement
of the alleged victim under Section 164
Cr.P.C. is categorical that the victim had
not been abducted and had exercised her
own freewill and choice. The victim and
the applicant have married with each other
and are living a happy married life having
two children and the continuation of these
proceedings would destroy the entire
family life of the applicant and victim. He
further submits that the FIR was lodged by
the opposite party No.2, who is the father
of the victim, under a mistaken impression
1384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
they
have
now
resolved
that
misunderstanding, which has resulted in the
filing of the compromise, which has been
duly verified by the concerned Court.

4. Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma, Learned
counsel for the opposite party No.2 also
states that the proceedings were initiated
under a mistaken impression. He states that
the statement of victim under Section 164
Cr.P.C. qua her age was recorded under
pressure and the alleged victim was major
at the time of occurrence. He has no
objection to the proceedings being quashed
and affirms the compromise executed
between the parties.

5.
Learned
AGA
contends
that
although the victim has supported the stand
of the applicant in her statements, however,
her medical report, which puts her at 19
years of age, is not in consonance with the
assertions made in the FIR. No specific
date of birth has been mentioned in the
FIR. The victim herself in statement under
Section 161 states that she is major. He
further contends that in the absence of any
documentary evidence to ascertain the age
of the alleged victim, her medical report
would be given precedence.

6. This Court in a recent decision in
Application
U/s
528
BNSS
No.34844/2025 (Wasiullah and others vs.
State of U.P. and others) crystalised the
law
with
respect
to
quashing
of
proceedings in cases relating to sexual
offences.

7. This Court in above-mentioned
decision considered the law as under:-

"14. 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 applicants, 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 no.1 has
also
solemnized
marriage
with
the
prosecutrix and the parties are happily
living together. On the above conspectus,
the learned counsel for applicants submits
that the criminal prosecution of applicants
cannot be sustained in law as well as fact
and therefore, the same is liable to be
quashed by this Court.

15. Be that as it may, the crux of
the matter is that the parties have
solemnized marriage and they are living
together as husband and wife and a baby
boy
was
born
on
09.08.2018.
The
prosecutrix is now residing with the
applicant no.1 as his legally wedded wife ,
no such material has been brought on
record on the basis of which the marriage
of the parties could be doubted. In view of
the
subsequent
development,
the
criminality, if any, committed by the
applicants now stands washed off. As such,
no useful purpose would be served in
prolonging the criminal prosecution of the
applicants. On account of the facts as noted
above, the chances of conviction of the
applicants are now not only remote but also
bleak. As such, in case the criminal
11 All. Riyaj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1385
prosecution of the applicants is allowed to
continue, a happy family comprising of
applicant no.1 and the prosecutrix shall
stand broken. The trial would only entail
loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit
particularly when torrents of litigation
drown the courts with an unimaginable
flood of dockets.

16. 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.

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
1386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

17. 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.

18. 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."

19. 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 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 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.

20. 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
11 All. Riyaj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1387
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 IPC 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 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." "

8. Considering the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
judgement referred to above, this Court
proceeded to quash the proceedings arising
out of offences under Sections 363, 366,
504, 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act.

9. In the present case, the facts are
quite similar. The prosecutrix at the
relevant point of time claims to have been
major. The medical examination conducted
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Hospital, Bareilly on 09.06.2016 records
that the age of the prosecutrix from her
medical examination appeared to be about
19 years. This age has been determined by
a medical board.

10. In her statement under Section
161, the victim has stated as under:-

"मेरी उम्र 20 वर्ष ह।ैै मैंनेएस.एस.
पप्तिक स्कूल चक महमूद थाना बारादरी बरेली
सेकक्षा 7 की परीक्षा वर्ष 2010 मेंपास की थी,
1388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
मुझेअपनी जन्म शतशथ याद नहीों ह।ैै मैं20/21
नवम्बर 2015 की रात को अपनी मजी से
अपनेघर वालोों को शबना बतायेगयी थी। रात
मेंिहदाना चौराहेपर ररयाज पुि इसरार खाों शन.
मौ. चकमहमूद थाना बारादरी बरेली मुझेशमला
था। उसके साथ मैंनेएक शदन बाद आला हजरत
की दरगाह पर जाकर अपनेधमष के अनुसार
ररयाज सेशनकाह कर शलया उसके बाद तक
दोनोों जयपुर मेंजाकर पशत पत्नी की तरह
रहनेलगे।
हम
लोगोों
नेमाननीय
हाईकोटष
इलाहाबाद
जाकर
वकील
सेशमलकर
अपनेशनकाह के सम्बोंध मेंआदेि कराया। आज
मैंथाने आयी हों। मेरा हों शकसी केद्वारा कोई
अपहरण नहीों शकया गया ह।ैै"

(Some part of the statement, which
disclose the identity of the alleged victim
have been excluded.)

11. Similarly in her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated as
under:-

"मैंऔर रेयाज एक दूसरेसेशवगत 2
वर्ों सेप्रेम करतेथेव शनकाह करना चाहतेथेपर
हमारी उपजाशत अलग होनेके कारण मेरेघर
वालेइस शनकाह केशलयेराजी नहीों थेइसीशलए
शदनाोंक 21.11.15 को रेयाज केसाथ भाग कर
मैंने आला हजरत की दरगाह पर शनकाह कर
शदया था, उसके बाद हम जयपुर चलेगयेथे,
शनकाह के बाद सेही हम पशत पत्नी की तरह
सेरह रहेहैं, हैं मुझेशकसी नेबहलाया फुसलाया
नहीों था बप्तल्क मैंअपनी मजी सेरेयाज केसाथ
अपने घर से भागी थी।"

(Some part of the statement, which
disclose the identity of the alleged victim
have been excluded.)

12. While giving her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has disclosed her
age to be seventeen and a half years. It is
apparent from the material on record that
she has categorically alleged that no one
abducted her. She had gone off with the
applicant out of her own freewill and
choice. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of S. Varadrajan vs. State of U.P.,
AIR 1965 SC 942 in paragraphs 9 and 10
held as follows:-

"9. It must, however, be borne in
mind that there is a distinction between
?taking?
and
allowing
a
minor
to
accompany a person. The two expressions
are not synonymous though we would like
to guard ourselves from laying down that in
no conceivable circumstances can the two
be regarded as meaning the same thing for
the purposes of Section 361 of the Indian
Penal Code. We would limit ourselves to a
case like the present where the minor
alleged to have been taken by the accused
person left her father's protection knowing
and having capacity to know the full import
of what she was doing voluntarily joins the
accused person. In such a case we do not
think that the accused can be said to have
taken her away from the keeping of her
lawful guardian. Something more has to be
shown in a case of this kind and that is
some kind of inducement held out by the
accused person or an active participation
by him in the formation of the intention of
the minor to leave the house of the
guardian.

10.
It
would,
however,
be
sufficient if the prosecution establishes that
though immediately prior to the minor
leaving the father's protection no active
part was played by the accused, he had at
some earlier stage solicited or persuaded
the minor to do so. In our opinion, if
evidence to establish one of those things is
lacking it would not be legitimate to infer
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