Nazim vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Nazim vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim stay: until further orders of this Court, further proceedings in Criminal Case no. 1960/2023 (State Vs. Nazim) pending before the Court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, District Bareilly are stayed; the quashing application was taken up for consideration with counter affidavits directed within four weeks, rejoinder affidavits within two weeks, and admission listed on 21.05.2025. No merits determination was made.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 10.08.2023 and the cognizance order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Bareilly, and the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 1960/2023 (State Vs. Nazim) arising out of Case Crime No. 335/2023 should be quashed in view of the applicant's subsequent marriage with the prosecutrix, the pending marriage-registration application, and the compromise between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for State-opposite party no. 1 and the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party no. 2, and upon perusal of record, the Court found that the matter requires consideration; opposite parties were directed to file counter affidavits within four weeks, the applicant to file rejoinder affidavits within two weeks thereafter, and the application was listed for admission on 21.05.2025.

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, until further orders of this Court, further proceedings in Criminal Case no. 1960/2023 (State Vs. Nazim) arising out of Case crime no. 335/2023, pending before the Court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, District Bareilly, shall remain stayed.

Key takeaways

The Court observed that the crux of the matter is that the applicant has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and that the parties have also applied for grant of registration of their marriage; whether these subsequent developments justify quashing was left to be weighed at the admission stage.obiter¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 70), order dated 8.4.2025 of Hon’ble Rajeev Misra, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:51511. Application U/S 482 No. 24080 of 2024 (described in the body as moved under Section 528 BNSS) by charge-sheeted accused Nazim seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.08.2023 and cognizance order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Bareilly, in Criminal Case no. 1960/2023 (State Vs. Nazim) arising out of Case Crime No. 335/2023, U/s 354C, 366, 376(2)(N), 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly. The plea rests on subsequent developments: FIR dated 3.7.2023 by first informant Smt. Somwati (prosecutrix's mother) originally naming an unknown person; the applicant's marriage with the prosecutrix (opposite party no. 3) on 3.6.2024 per Hindu rites with an averment of conversion from Islam to Hinduism; joint application for marriage registration under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017; out-of-court settlement reduced to a compromise deed dated 2.5.2024; and an application dated 3.4.2025 before the court below seeking termination of proceedings. The learned AGA opposed, invoking Rampal Vs. State of Haryana (AIR online 2019 SC 1716) to contend there can be no compromise in matters relating to rape and sexual assault; counsel for the first informant did not oppose. Finding the matter to require consideration, the Court directed counter affidavits within four weeks and rejoinder affidavits within two weeks, listed the application for admission on 21.05.2025, and, as an interim measure, stayed further proceedings in the criminal case until further orders. No merits determination was made at this pre-admission stage.