The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Devendra Kumar Tiwari, accused of establishing a physical relationship with a woman under the false pretext of marriage. The decision came after the court noted that the parties had legally married during the pendency of the case, rendering further prosecution unnecessary.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR filed on October 23, 2024, at Para Police Station, Lucknow, where the complainant, a woman, accused Tiwari of deception by falsely promising marriage and later reneging on his commitment. She alleged that under this false assurance, he had engaged in a physical relationship with her. The FIR was registered under the following provisions:
Section 69, 352, and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which deal with sexual offenses and assault.
Sections 3(d), 3(e), and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which criminalize offenses against individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, particularly when committed with wrongful intent or coercion.
During the pendency of the trial, the dispute between the complainant and the accused was amicably resolved through the intervention of their family members. Subsequently, they solemnized their marriage on January 17, 2025, as evidenced by the certificate of registration of marriage submitted in court.
Given this development, the petitioner moved an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC), seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the dispute no longer existed between the parties.
Court’s Observations
A single-judge bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania analyzed whether criminal proceedings could continue despite the voluntary settlement and marriage between the parties. The court extensively referred to past Supreme Court rulings that established precedents on quashing cases where the dispute has been resolved between parties, particularly in matrimonial matters.
The court noted that the primary grievance of the complainant was the non-fulfillment of the promise of marriage. However, since the couple had now legally married, there was no substantive reason to continue criminal prosecution, as it would serve no legal purpose.
Quoting from State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699, the court reiterated that criminal law should not be used as a tool to interfere with personal lives when a resolution has been reached. The court further observed:
“No fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court in view of the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the victim, especially when they have now married each other. Continuing the case would only disrupt their matrimonial life and cause unnecessary hardship.”
Additionally, the court cited B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Ramgopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 14 SCC 531, and Sonu alias Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 181), emphasizing that:
When criminal proceedings arise from a personal dispute that has been resolved, courts can exercise their inherent powers to prevent the abuse of legal processes.
Cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct based on unfulfilled promises of marriage require careful examination, particularly when both parties subsequently choose to marry.
Quashing proceedings in such circumstances serves the broader interest of justice by preventing unnecessary litigation that no longer holds a valid grievance.
Court’s Decision
After reviewing the settlement, marriage certificate, and legal precedents, the High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (akin to Section 482 CrPC) to quash the case.
The court reasoned that forcing the accused to continue facing trial, despite the complainant’s willingness to withdraw, would not serve the ends of justice. Instead, it would unnecessarily strain their newly established marital relationship and interfere with their private life.
The court stated:
“The inherent power of the High Court must be exercised in situations where the continuance of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process or where the settlement between parties renders further litigation redundant. In the present case, since the complainant herself does not wish to proceed and the couple has now married, continuing this trial would not be in the interest of justice.”
Accordingly, the court allowed the application, quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending before the Special Judge, Prevention of Atrocities Act, Lucknow.
Legal Representation
Petitioner: Represented by Advocate Aman Thakur
State of Uttar Pradesh: Represented by Government Advocate Kaushal Kumar
Complainant/Victim: Represented by Advocate Anarsh Verma
