# Wasiullah & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 452
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 34844 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/wasiullah-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52867
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to Consensual relation.

Headnotes
Indian
Penal
Code-sec
363,
366Allegation that her minor daughter has been
enticed away by the applicant no.1 - victim
was aged about 18 years-victim stated that
she used to know the applicant no.1-and went
to Mumbai with him and they stayed there for
about 75 days- first informant was against
this relationship -they have solemnized Nikah
against the wishes of the informant and a
male
child
was
born-
parties
amicably
resolved their dispute and arrived at a
compromise- prosecutrix is now residing with
the applicant no.1 as his legally wedded wifecriminality, if any, committed by the applicants
now stands washed off- chances of conviction
of the applicants are now not only remote but
also bleak-Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 i) The victim, since her childhood,
was residing with her maternal grand parents at
Gorakhpur away from her parents, who resided
at Basti. This evinces the psychology of victim.

 ii) The first instance mentioned in the
F.I.R. of committing rape is of 21.11.2023,
when the accused-applicant is alleged to have
taken the victim to his residence, where the
marriage was assured by the accused and his
parents.

 iii) Subsequent instance is of
23.11.2023, when the accused has allegedly
taken the victim to a hotel at Gorakhpur and
committed rape. This instance was intimated to
the Police by the victim.

 iv) The third instance is of taking the
victim to Delhi. This was allegedly on the
assurance of parents of the accused, who had
given consent of marriage at Police Station,
when they were called at Police Station
Sipriganj, Gorakhpur.

13. All these instances mentioned in
the F.I.R. and statement of victim, on the face of
it shows that there was intentional false promise
of marriage, which has direct nexus to influence
the consent of the victim and are subject matter
of trial.

14. In the case of Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar (supra) the accused was Deputy
Commandant in CRPF, while the victim was
Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and
Hon'ble Supreme Court found that allegations
in the F.I.R. did not on the face of it indicate
that the promise by the appellant was false, or
that the complainant engaged in sexual relations
on the basis of this promise.

15. In case of Sonu alias Subhash
Kumar (supra) relied on by the accused
applicant is based on different facts, wherein the
victim developed voluntary relations of
husband and wife with accused after falling in
love with the accused. It is thereafter that
accused and family members refused to marry
her, which led to the lodging of the F.I.R.

16. The case of Amol Bhagwan
Nehul (supra) is on different fact. In that case
allegation of sexual intercourse on false
promise of marriage was levelled by the
complainant
whose
first
marriage
was
subsisting and the accused-appellant, 23 years
of age, was a student of Bachelor of Science
(Agriculture) and the victim used to visit the
college of accused. In this backdrop, Hon'ble
the Supreme Court has made observation that
the consent was not the outcome of inducement
or misrepresentation.

17. Therefore, the cited cases relied on
by the applicant are of no help to the applicant.

18. In view of the foregoing
discussions, the application moved by the
applicant is devoid of merit and deserves to be
dismissed.

19. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim
order dated 01.08.2024 stands vacated.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 452
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 34844 of 2025

Wasiullah & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
11 All. Wasiullah & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
453
Vikas Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to Consensual relation.

Headnotes
Indian
Penal
Code-sec
363,
366Allegation that her minor daughter has been
enticed away by the applicant no.1 - victim
was aged about 18 years-victim stated that
she used to know the applicant no.1-and went
to Mumbai with him and they stayed there for
about 75 days- first informant was against
this relationship -they have solemnized Nikah
against the wishes of the informant and a
male
child
was
born-
parties
amicably
resolved their dispute and arrived at a
compromise- prosecutrix is now residing with
the applicant no.1 as his legally wedded wifecriminality, if any, committed by the applicants
now stands washed off- chances of conviction
of the applicants are now not only remote but
also bleak-Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. State of Kerala vs. Hafsal Rahman, Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) No.24362 of 2021
2. Ramji Lal Bairwa and Another vs. State of
Rajasthan and Others, (2025) 5 SCC 117
3. K. Dhandapani Vs. The State By the Inspector
of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056
4. Mafat Lal and other Vs. The State of
Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 433
5. Shriram Urav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in
Criminal Appeal No(S). 41/2021
6. Dasari Srikant vs. State of Telangana reported
in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 936
7. Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and
Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614
8. Madhukar and Others vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Another-SLP (Criminal) No.
7212 of 2025
9. Prabhakar vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Another-SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of 2025

List of Acts
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012
List of Keywords
chances
of
conviction,
amicably
resolved,
compromise.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vikas Yadav, Counsel
for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vikas Yadav, learned
counsel for the applicants, Shri Ranu,
learned counsel appearing for the opposite
party no.2 as well as the learned AGA for
the State of U.P.

2. Present application under Section
528 BNSS has been preferred by the
applicants seeking quashing of the entire
proceedings of Sessions Trial No.187 of
2017 (State vs. Wasiullah and Others),
arising out of Case Crime No.64 of 2017,
under sections 363, 366, 504, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC)'
and Section 7/8 of The Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(in short 'POCSO Act') against the
applicant no.1 and under Sections 504 and
506 IPC against the applicant nos.2 & 3,
Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir
Nagar as well as impugned Chargesheet
dated
16.03.2017
and
Cognizance/Summoning
order
dated
23.03.2017, pending in the court of learned
Special Court, POCSO Act, District-Sant
Kabir Nagar.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
the opposite party no.2/first informant
lodged a first information report against the
applicants on 19.01.2017 in respect of the
alleged incident dated 30.12.2016. The first
information report was registered as Case
Crime No.64 of 2017, under Sections 363,
366, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of the
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
POCSO Act at Police Station Bakhira,
District
Sant
Kabir
Nagar,
wherein
allegation has been levelled by the
informant/opposite party no.2 that her
minor daughter has been enticed away by
the applicant no.1 on 30.12.2016 at 5.00
PM and when he went to the house of
applicant no.1, his other family members,
including the applicants no.2 and 3, had
hurled abuses and threatened him with dire
consequences.

4. The Investigating Officer recovered
the victim on 26.01.2017 and her statement
was recorded under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
'Cr.P.C.), wherein, she stated that she went
with the applicant no.1 on her own will and
she claimed herself to be a major girl. She
further stated that she wanted to solemnize
her marriage/Nikah with the applicant no.1.
She lastly stated that her family members
lodged a false first information report
against the applicants. Even in her
statement recorded under section 164
Cr.P.C,
before
the
Magistrate
on
09.03.2017, the victim had stated that she
used to know the applicant no.1 and went
to Mumbai with him and they stayed there
for about 75 days. She clearly stated that no
sexual intercourse had taken place between
them and when she came to know about
lodging of the FIR, she came back to her
house.

5. The victim was medically examined
on 28.01.2017 and as per report, no injury
was found over the body of the victim, copy
of the medical report has been appended at
page 35 of the application. Thereafter, the
victim was referred to the office of the Chief
Medical Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar for
ascertaining her age and as per report of the
Chief Medical Officer dated 02.02.2017, the
victim was aged about 18 years. Once the
Investigating Officer recorded the statement
of the victim and other witnesses, he
submitted chargesheet in this case on
16.03.2017 and the learned Magistrate took
cognizance vide his order dated 23.03.2017.
Thereafter, the applicants challenged the
proceedings of aforesaid Sessions Trial
No.187 of 2017 before this Court and the
matter was referred to Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court vide order
dated 11.09.2025, where the parties amicably
resolved their dispute and arrived at a
compromise on 08.10.2025.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel
for the applicants that the applicants have
been falsely implicated in the present case
and a false FIR was lodged by the first
informant /opposite party no.2 on 19.01.2017
against the applicants and the same was
registered as Case Crime no.64/2017, under
sections 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC, and Section
7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Bakhira,
District Sant Kabir Nagar regarding the
alleged incident dated 30.12.2016. The
Investigating Officer recorded the statement
of the victim and collected other relevant
evidences
including
the
educational
certificate and medical report of the victim.
Thereafter, the victim was produced before
the learned Magistrate for recording her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and
finally the Investigating Officer submitted a
chargesheet in this case on 16.03.2017 and
cognizance was taken by the learned
Magistrate vide order dated 23.03.2017.
Being aggrieved with the chargesheet dated
16.03.2017 and cognizance order dated
16.03.2017, the present application under
section 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicants.

7.
In
paragraph
no.11
of
the
application, it is stated that the applicant
no.1 and the victim were in love but the
11 All. Wasiullah & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
455
first informant was against this relationship
and they have solemnized Nikah against
the wishes of the informant and a male
child was born on 09.08.2018 (copy of the
birth certificate has been appended as
Annexure-7 to this application). After
solemnizing Nikah, the applicant no.1 and
the daughter of the opposite party no.2 are
residing under the same roof and they are
enjoying their matrimonial life. On the
request of the learned counsel for the
applicants, this Court had referred the
present case to Mediation and Conciliation
Centre of this Court, where the applicant
no.1, opposite party no.2 (Informant) and
his daughter/victim appeared and arrived at
a settlement agreement dated 08.10.2025.
As per settlement agreement report dated
08.10.2025
following
settlement
was
arrived at between the parties hereto:-

a) That both the parties appear
before the Centre alongwith Kanis Fatima
(wife of Wasiullah and daughter of first
informant/ complainant) state that they
have already settle their dispute amicably
and they do not want to pursue the instant
case in future also. The applicant no. 1 and
Kanis Fatima produce the affidavits '
NA528 No. 34844 of 2025 3 शपथपत्र' before
the Centre and reiterate and reaffirm all
the statements mentioned therein and
further states that they have got married to
each other and out of their wedlock, they
have a male child namely, Sameer alias
Mohd. Waziullah (aged about four years
and six months) for which the first
informant/ complainant have no objection
in any manner whatsoever. The said
affidavits 'शपथपत्र' produced by applicant no.
1 and Kanis Fatima (d/o complainant/ first
informant) in original which are annexed
(collectively) to this settlement agreement
which shall be a part of this settlement
agreement also.

b) That both the parties agree
that they have no further claims or
liabilities against each other and undertake
not to contest any litigation in any manner
whatsoever related to the instant dispute
arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2017.

c) That both the parties agree
that
after
entering
into
the
instant
settlement
agreement,
the
parties
hereinafter have no dispute with each
other. d) That both the parties agree that as
of now they have no dispute against each
other and they will move withdrawal
applications in all the civil and dispute,
before the concerned Court/authority."

8. As per the aforesaid report of
mediation centre, the marriage of the
applicant
no.1
was
solemnized
with
daughter of the first informant/opposite
party no.2 and they were blessed with a
male child, namely Sameer alias Mohd.
Wasiullah and they are living a peaceful
married life for the last several years.
Learned counsel for the applicants further
submitted that though the applicants are
named and chargesheeted accused and they
are also facing trial before the Trial Court
in the aforementioned sessions case,
however, in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case that have now
emerged
on
record,
the
criminal
prosecution of the applicants cannot be
sustained any further. As such, the present
application is liable to be allowed by this
Court.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the
opposite party no.2/informant states that
the informant has no objection if the
proceeding of the present case is quashed
by this Court in pursuance of the aforesaid
settlement agreement dated 08.10.2025.
Both the contesting parties have arrived at a
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compromise and the opposite party no.2
has also pressed that the proceedings of the
present case be quashed by this Court.

10. Learned AGA has opposed the
prayer made by the applicants but could not
dispute the fact that the marriage of the
applicant no.1 has been solemnized with
daughter
of
opposite
party
no.2/first
informant and a child was born out of their
wedlock. Learned AGA further submitted
that since the prosecutrix was a child within
the definition of the term "child" as defined
in
the
POCSO
Act,
therefore,
the
subsequent development, if any, will not
wipe out the criminality committed by the
applicants as suggested by the learned
counsel for the applicant. Referring to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Kerala vs. Hafsal Rahman,
Special
Leave
Petition
(Criminal)
No.24362 of 2021 and Ramji Lal Bairwa
and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and
Others, (2025) 5 SCC 117, the learned
AGA submitted that there can be no
compromise in proceeding under the
POCSO Act. Offence complained of
against the accused/applicants is not only
illegal but also immoral. Offence alleged to
have been committed by the applicants is a
heinous offence and amounts to an offence
against society, as such, no interference is
warranted by this Court in the present
application and prayed for its dismissal.

11. I have heard rival submissions of
the parties and perused the records.

12. Undoubtedly marriage of the
applicant no.1 and daughter of the opposite
party no.2 has been solemnized a long way
back and a child was born on 09.08.2018.
The married couple are living under the
same roof for a very long time. The dispute
has been settled by the parties in mediation
and conciliation centre on 08.10.2025 and
the contesting parties agreed to drop
criminal proceedings including the present
one.

13. Now, the question arises here as to
whether the proceedings of a criminal case
under sections 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC and
Section 7/8 POCSO Act can be quashed by
the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C.
or 528 B.N.S.S., if the parties have settled
the dispute amicably and living as husbandwife for a long period.

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
11 All. Wasiullah & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457
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 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
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

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
11 All. Wasiullah & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
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
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."

21. In my considered opinion, the fact
of the case of Ramji Lal Bairwa (supra)
is distinguishable from the facts of the
present case, inasmuch as, in the present
case the applicant no.1 and the victim have
solemnized their marriage and a baby boy
was born out of their wedlock and they are
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
living a happy married life for the last
several years and the opposite party
no.2/first informant has also entered into
settlement agreement before the Mediation
Centre of this Court, and if the proceedings
of the Trial Court is not quashed by this
Court, the applicant no.1 and the victim and
their family members may sustain legal
injury. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex
Court
in
the
aforementioned
judgments i.e. Shriram Urav (supra),
Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra), K.
Dhandapani (supra) and Mafat Lal
(supra) is squarely applicable to the facts
of the present case as the applicant no.1 has
solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix
and the parties are happily living together
with their baby boy and this Court cannot
ignore the said fact.

22. In view of the discussion made
herein above, the present application
succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is
accordingly allowed.

23. The entire proceedings of Sessions
Trial No.187 of 2017 (State vs. Wasiullah
and Others), arising out of Case Crime
No.64 of 2017, under sections 363, 366,
504, 506 of the IPC and Section 7/8 of the
The POCSO Act against the applicant no.1
and under Sections 504 and 506 IPC
against the applicant nos.2 & 3, at Police
Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar
as well as impugned Chargesheet dated
16.03.2017 and Cognizance/Summoning
order dated 23.03.2017, pending in the
court of learned Special Court, POCSO
Act, District -Sant Kabir Nagar, are hereby
quashed.

24. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 460
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 42526 of 2025

Kallu & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Hari Keshav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Scope of sec 245 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 244,
245- trial has proceeded as warrant trial
instituted otherwise than on a police report-
right of cross-examination is a very salutary
right-accused would have to be given an
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses-
who have been offered at the stage of Section
244(1) Cr.P.C-the accused can show, by way of
the cross-examination that there is no justifiable
ground against him for facing the trial - the
prosecution would have to offer some evidenceimpugned order set aside-matter remittedApplication disposed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand and
another AIR 2009 SC 2282

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure

List of Keywords
Right of cross-examination, no evidence under
Section 244 was recorded, right of the accused
to cross-examine the witnesses, at the stage of
Section 244(1) Cr.P.C.

Appearances of parties