1. Counter affidavit filed by the State in Court today is taken on record.

2. The applicant and the victim/opposite party no. 5 are present before this Court, who have been identified by Shri Shiv Pal Singh, Advocate and Shri Pawan Kumar Nigam, Advocate, appearing for the said parties.

3. Annexure No. CA-1 of Counter Affidavit filed by the State indicates that the service of notice upon opposite party no. 2 is sufficient. However, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 to oppose the present application. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to decide the application on merits with the help of learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P., Pawan Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the victim/opposite party no. 5.

4. Heard

5. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following main relief:-

"to set-aside the entire proceedings of Special Crl. Case No. 1178/2024 (State Versus Abbu Sayyub @ Azad) arising out of impugned chargesheet No. A-379/2024, dated 10.11.2024 filed by investigating officer against the applicant/petitioner in Case Crime No. 0390/2024, Under Section-137 (2), 87, 64 (1) B.N.S. Act & Section-3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Hujoorpur, District-Bahraich as well as summoning order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bahraich by which the applicant/petitioner has been summoned for facing of trial under the aforesaid section, as contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 respectively to this petition"

6. It is stated that applicant and victim/opposite party no. 5 were having affair and victim/opposite party no. 5 was inclined to marry him and both were known to each other.

7. It is further stated that the relationship of victim/opposite party no. 5 and applicant was not acknowledged/accepted by the opposite party no.2;father of the victim/opposite party no. 5 and therefore an FIR No. 390 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act was lodged against the applicant. According to this FIR, the victim/opposite party no. 5, a minor aged about seventeen years, was enticed away by the applicant.

8. It is further stated that in fact, the victim/opposite party no. 5, on her own volition, left house of her parents and accompanied the applicant to Lucknow where the applicant and the victim/opposite party no. 5 solemnized marriage and started living as husband and wife.

9. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the victim/opposite party no. 5 under Section 183 of BNSS according to this statement the victim/opposite party no. 5 was being tortured and assaulted by her parents for not performing the work assigned to her and on 04.10.2024 she was beaten with 'danda' and therefore, the victim/opposite party no. 5 left her parental house and a bare perusal of the same would also indicate that at that point of time she indicated that her age is twentyone years.

10. It is also stated that the medico-legal examination report annexed as Annexure No. 6 also indicates the age of the victim i.e. about eighteen years.

11. Further submission is that the age of the victim/opposite party no. 5 indicated by the prosecution is not correct and to establish that the age indicated in the documents available with the prosecution is correct there is no material/evidence with the prosecution. It is in view of the age indicated by the victim/opposite party no. 5 before the concerned Investigating Officer i.e. 21 years as also the date of birth mentioned in the document in the parivar register, annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the application, which indicates her date of birth as 01.02.2002 and in view of these facts as also that the applicant and the victim/opposite party no. 5 are living together as husband and wife, the benefit of the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including in the case(s) of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397, shall be extended in favour of the applicant and the opposite party no.5/victim both.

12. It is also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter, as otherwise, entire matrimonial life of applicant and victim/opposite party no. 5 would be ruined.

13. The victim/opposite party no. 5 present before this Court also made her statement in the same tune.

14. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also the observations in relation to determination of age rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra), Gurmit Singh (Supra), Suhani (Supra) and Manak Chand alias Mani (Supra) as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which, inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, and also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0390/2024, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

15. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.