(B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ.)
Anshul Sharma @ Ashu and Another __________________ Appellants;
v.
State of U.P. and Another _________________________ Respondent(s).
Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15171/2025), decided on November 17, 2025
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.V. Nagarathna, J.:—
1. Leave granted.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the instant case are that the two appellants-accused persons herein are the victim’s sister’s brothers-in-law who are siblings. Appellant No. 1/accused No. 1 and the victim solemnized their marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir at village Mainpuri on 03.05.2016. According to the appellants, on the same day the victim executed an affidavit affirming the fact of her majority and the exercise of her free will to marry appellant No. 1.
3. However, as the victim’s mother was unhappy with the union, she filed a First Information Report (hereinafter, ‘FIR’) registered as Case Crime No. 242/2016 dated 09.06.2016 with Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’). It was alleged in the FIR that on 02.05.2016 accused No. 1 lured away the eighteen and half years old victim, whom the mother had not seen since then.
4. Apprehending a threat to their union and physical safety due to the registration of the aforesaid FIR, appellant No. 1 and the victim together filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16370/2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) seeking police protection. On 15.07.2016, the victim appeared in person before a Division Bench of the High Court and stated that she had attained the age of majority and had entered into the marriage out of her own free will. On the same day, the High Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners therein. The aforesaid writ petition was eventually dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2017 for non-prosecution.
5. However, a month later, after returning to her parental home, the victim stated in her statement recorded under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘CrPC’) that on 02.05.2016, while on her way to her elder sister’s village, she was lured away by appellant No. 1, made to board a bus and taken to Delhi, where she was forced to stay for a month. Thereafter, the victim was, allegedly, forced by both appellants and their father to stay for a month each in Mainpuri followed by Village Roopnagar in Etawah. After three months, the victim called her mother to take her back from Etawah, which eventually happened. The victim stated that throughout this time, appellant No. 1 ‘committed wrongful acts with me’. Subsequently, on 02.09.2016, the victim added more explanations in her statement recorded under Section 164, CrPC while stating that she was forcibly taken to Delhi, held against her will in Mainpuri and Etawah for a month each, threatened to marry appellant No. 1, and appellant No. 1 attempted to rape her.
6. To contend that this is a fit case for quashing, the appellants have tried to draw our attention to the statements that are stated to be ipso facto contradictory and apocryphal. Earlier, appellants’ father and appellant No. 2 had preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21699/2016 before the High Court with a prayer to quash the FIR in Case Crime No. 242/2016 but the same was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 06.10.2016 by refusing the prayer while granting them interim protection from arrest till the submission of the police report. It was contended therein that the names of appellant No. 2-brother and appellants’ father were not found in the FIR. Appellant No. 1 had also preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24067/2016 before the High Court for quashing of the FIR but the same was dismissed on merits vide order dated 24.11.2016 while granting him interim protection from arrest till the submission of the police report.
7. Chargesheet was filed on 08.12.2016 against the accused persons under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 511 of the IPC. The said provisions read as under:
“363. Punishment for kidnapping. — Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine
xxx
366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.— Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.
xxx
376. Punishment for rape.—(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever,—
(a) being a police officer, commits rape—
(i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house; or
(iii) on a woman in such police officer’s custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or
(b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant’s custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or
(c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or
(d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women’s or children’s institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or
(e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or
(g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or
(h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
xxx
(j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or
(k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or
(l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or
(m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or
(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section,—
(a) “armed forces” means the naval, military and air forces and includes any member of the Armed Forces constituted under any law for the time being in force, including the paramilitary forces and any auxiliary forces that are under the control of the Central Government or the State Government;
(b) “hospital” means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation;
(c) “police officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to the expression “police” under the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861);
(d) “women’s or children’s institution” means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widow’s home or an institution called by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children.
(3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:
Provided further that any fine imposed under this subsection shall be paid to the victim.
xxx
511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.— Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.”
8. Aggrieved by the filing of the chargesheet, the accused persons, on April 27, 2017, filed Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the CrPC No. 13248/2017 before the High Court seeking to quash entire proceedings in Case No. 269/2017 (State v. Ashu) pending in the court of CJM, District Kannauj, arising out of Case Crime No. 242/2016, Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj, and also to quash the charge sheet dated 08.12.2016 and any other proceeding emanating therefrom.
9. By the impugned order dated 23.07.2025, the High Court dismissed the application preferred by appellants. The Impugned Order recapitulates the statement made by the victim before the High Court on 15.07.2016 and also exhaustively describes the contents of the statement recorded on 02.09.2016 under Section 164, CrPC. Finally, the High Court dismissed the application observing that the categorical statement of the victim makes out a prima facie case against the appellants.
10. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their application vide the impugned order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
11. By order dated 23.09.2025, this Court issued notice in the matter and directed stay of further proceedings in Case Crime No. 242/2016
12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the first respondent-State. The second respondent is served and has not appeared.
13. During the course of submissions, it was brought to our notice that the so-called victim, Smt. Pooja, has married appellant No. 1. In fact, they had earlier filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16370 of 2016 wherein by order dated 15.07.2016, the High Court had recorded as under:
“On the matter being taken up today, Smt. Pooja D/o. Ramdeen, petitioner No. 1 is present in Court and she claims that she is major and on her own freewill, walked out from her parental house and has entered into matrimonial alliance with Ashu S/o Jagdish, petitioner No. 2.
Both the petitioners have contended that once they are major and they have voluntarily married, then to conceive in view of the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013-Sachin Pawar v. State of U.P., decided on 02.08.2013, that, offence has been committed under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., cannot be approved of.
The petitioners are present in the Court and have been identified by their counsel.
Prima facie arguments advanced appear to have some substance and require consideration by this court as such pursuant to impugned F.I.R. dated 9.6.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 242 of 2016 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., police station Thathiya, District Kannauj, no coercive action be taken against the petitioners.”
14. The said Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16370 of 2016 was dismissed by order dated 06.03.2017 (Annexure R1) for non-prosecution. Thereafter, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24067 of 2016 was filed which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure R2). No doubt, the said order has not been assailed by the appellants herein. The third application under Section 482 No. 13248 of 2017 was filed by the appellants herein, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 23.07.2025.
15. What is significant is the fact that Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16370 of 2016 was filed by both appellant No. 1 herein as well as Smt. Pooja who is presently his wife. We have extracted the relevant portion of the said order. On the perusal of the same, it is noted that the appellant No. 1 has married Smt. Pooja. The said fact, as is apparent from the order dated 15.07.2016, is sufficient to hold that the allegations as against the appellants herein were frivolous and vexatious and no offence as alleged under Sections 363 and 366 IPC has been made out as against the appellants herein.
16. In the circumstances, we find that the High Court ought to have allowed the petition filed by the appellants herein and quashed the complaint.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 13248 of 2017 and the order dated 24.11.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24067 of 2016 also exercising our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
18. Consequently, Case Crime No. 242/2016 dated 09.06.2016 with Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj and chargesheet dated 08.12.2016 filed pursuant to said FIR are quashed.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 15171/2025
[Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 23-07-2025 in A482 No. 13248/2017 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad]
Anshul Sharma @ Ashu & Anr.….Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr.….Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of the non-reportable signed judgment, which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stnd disposed of.
———
