Quashed

Sanjay Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2025A482/3917/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 363, 366 IPC and POCSO against the applicants. The court relied on settled ratio regarding marital relationships post-incident and the allegation that the FIR was lodged under misconception, noting a child was born to the parties.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0248/2022 against applicants were quashed; future appearance was exempted and trial court directed.

Sanjay Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3917 of 2024

¶3

Sanjay Gautam And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vimal Kishor Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohammad Ahmad

¶8

Court No. - 14

¶9

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶10

On 27.08.2025, the following order was passed:-

¶11

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mohammad Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶12

2. Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S.,2023 has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.C. No. 1951/2022, 'State Vs Sanjay Gautam', pending before the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.46, Barabanki, as well as Chargesheet No. 01/2022, dated 18.08.2022, under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., & Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station - Kothi, District Barabanki, and Summoning order dated 13.09.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 0248/2022, under sections - 363 366 I.P.C., relating to Police Station - Kothi, District - Barabanki.

¶13

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that under some misconception, the first information report has been lodged, whereas the fact remains that the victim was major at the time of the alleged incident and subsequently, they performed marriage and they are living as husband and wife and there is one year female child from their wedlock. He added that allowing the further criminal proceedings would ruin the matrimonial life of the applicant no. 1 as well as the alleged victim.

¶14

4. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the on a judgement rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021 and submits that the case of the present applicants is squarely covered with the ratio of Judgment abovesaid and thus, submission is that the criminal proceedings against the

¶15

A482 No. 3917 of 2024

¶16

¶17

applicants may be quashed.

¶18

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the version of learned counsel for the applicants.

¶19

6. Learned counsel for the State has no objection of the contentions aforesaid, if the parties have settled their dispute by way of performing a marriage.

¶20

7. For the foregoing reasons, the applicant no.1, Sanjay Gautam, applicant no. 2, Chandni including the opposite party no. 2, are directed to remain present before this court on 01-09-2025 at 02.15 P.M.

¶21

8. List/put up this matter on 01-09-2025.

¶22

9. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings arsing out of Case Crime No. 0248/2022, under sections - 363 366 I.P.C., relating to Police Station - Kothi, District - Barabanki, shall remain stayed so far as the present applicants are concerned. "

¶23

In compliance of the order aforesaid, the opposite party no.2/ complainant - Panna Lal, the applicant no.1 - Sanjay Gautam and the applicant no.2 - Chandni are present before this Court and they have been identified by their respective learned counsels in the Court.

¶24

On query being asked, the alleged victim - Chandni has stated that she was major at the time of the incident and she had performed marriage with the applicant no.1 and both are residing as husband and wife and there is one year child from their wedlock. Her submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicant no.2 may be dropped.

¶25

The complainant/ opposite party no.2 has stated that under certain misconception, he had lodged the FIR, though the alleged victim was major at the time of incident.

¶26

In view of aforesaid statement of the parties and considering the ratio of judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021, the criminal proceedings arsing out of Case Crime No. 0248 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Kothi, District Barabanki against the applicants, is hereby quashed.

¶27

The appearance of the opposite party no.2/ complainant, the applicant no.1 and the applicant no.2 are hereby exempted.

¶28

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned.

¶29

Consequences to follow.

¶30

A482 No. 3917 of 2024

¶31

¶32

Consigned to record. September 1, 2025

¶33

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶34

Mohd. Sharif

¶35

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravi Shanker Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Raj Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sayyam Nagpal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mahesh Kumar Tiwari @ Manish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Another

Balbeer Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ram Singar Vs the State of U.P and Ors.