Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1024 (ALL)

Ankur v. State of U. P.

2025-08-06

ANISH KUMAR GUPTA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vijay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Awadh Pratap Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Rizwan Ahmad, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 05.09.2024 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 9894/IX arising out of Case Crime No. 403 of 2016 (Stte of U.P. vs. Abhishek and others), under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC & 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. 3. During the pendency of the proceeding before the trial court in the instant case, the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The compromise was also executed. The aforesaid facts of settlement of dispute and execution of compromise has been admitted by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 by filing the counter affidavit in the instant case. This Court vide order dated 06.04.2017 had directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the compromise. In terms of the aforesaid order, the compromise executed between the parties was duly verified by the trial court concerned vide order dated 29.06.2017. The certified copy of the said order has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 20.12.2017 filed by the applicants. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the instant case involved the provisions of SC/ST Act, this Court passed the following order on 04.07.2025: "1. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is directed to verify that any amount was received by the opposite party no. 2 from the Social Welfare Officer. If any such amount has been received by the opposite party no. 2, the same is directed to be refunded to the Social Welfare Officer, in view of the compromise. 2. Put up this matter on 22.7.2025." 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, another supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on 22.07.2025. In pursuant to the aforesaid order the opposite party no.2 has deposited an amount of Rs. 75,000/-, which was received by opposite party no.2 from the office of District Social Welfare Officer, Shamli. In this regard, the copy has already been produced by the District Social Welfare Officer, Shamli. In pursuant to the aforesaid order the opposite party no.2 has deposited an amount of Rs. 75,000/-, which was received by opposite party no.2 from the office of District Social Welfare Officer, Shamli. In this regard, the copy has already been produced by the District Social Welfare Officer, Shamli. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties, learned counsel for the applicants as well as counsel for the opposite party no.2 seek quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant case. 6. Per contra, learned AGA has raised objection that in the instant case, the offence alleged in the FIR is not a dispute of private nature, rather it affects the society at large. Therefore, the proceeding of the instant case cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. In support of his submission, learned AGA has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, 2019 (5) SCC 688 . 7. In the rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and the opposite party no.2 are the neighbours and due to the trivial dispute between them, the instant case was lodged against the applicants herein by exonerating the facts of the actual dispute between the parties. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the nature of dispute between the parties was a private, thus the compromise executed between the parties can be relied upon for quashing of the proceeding. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also submits that since the victim, the daughter of opposite party no.2 herein has already been married and she is residing happily in the matrimonial home and if the instant criminal proceedings are continued against opposite party no.2, that will not only be stigmatic against the daughter of opposite party no.2 but the serious consequences will be there in the matrimonial life of the daughter of opposite party no.2. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. In the instant case, an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 alleging therein that the opposite party no.2 is Chamar by caste and she had gone outside her house. In the house, the daughter of the opposite party no.2 was alone. In the instant case, an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 alleging therein that the opposite party no.2 is Chamar by caste and she had gone outside her house. In the house, the daughter of the opposite party no.2 was alone. On 30.05.2016, in the evening around 6:00 P.M., in the absence of the opposite party no.2 having found the daughters of the opposite party no.2 alone and neighbours Abhishek son of Rampal, Sonu and Monu sons of Jayveer, Rishipal son of Sita, Ankur son of Chandraveer, Tanju and Sanjiv sons of Jagbeer, Gullu son of Narendra, who are Jats by caste forcefully pulled the younger daughter of the opposite party no.2 in a room and tried to molest her. When it was objected by her then they had beaten up the daughter of the opposite party no.2 saying that she cannot do anything against them as the police is with them and they would lodge a false case against them. They also pelted stones in the house of the opposite party no.2 and the younger daughter of the opposite party no.2, who is aged about 18 years sustained injury by the brick and became unconscious. The other daughters of the opposite party no.2 made a hue and cry, then the villagers gathered there and saved the daughter of the opposite party no.2. The aforesaid persons while going away also threatened that whenever they would get a chance, they would kill her. It is further alleged in the FIR that on 31.05.2016, a complaint was made to the SHO concerned and when no action was taken, the opposite party no.2 approached the District Magistrate and thereafter the instant FIR was registered. The matter was investigated by the police and thereupon the charge sheet was filed against the applicants herein for the offence under Sections 323, 452. 504 and 506 IPC and 3(1) (10) of SC/ST Act. Thereupon the applicants herein were summoned for the aforesaid offences. 10. During the pendency of the aforesaid case before the trial court concerned, the parties have settled their disputes amicably and a compromise was executed. Thereupon the opposite party no.2 along with her daughter moved an application before the trial court concerned on 28.03.2017 supported by the affidavits alleging therein that no such incident has happened with the opposite party no.2 or her daughter. Thereupon the opposite party no.2 along with her daughter moved an application before the trial court concerned on 28.03.2017 supported by the affidavits alleging therein that no such incident has happened with the opposite party no.2 or her daughter. They do not want to falsely implicate any person. In the affidavits, the opposite party no.2 as well as her daughter they have categorically denied the incident in toto and alleged that the injury was sustained by the opposite party no.2 due to slip of her feet while going towards Talab carrying dung on a basket. Thereupon the false FIR was lodged. No such incident as alleged in the FIR has taken place nor any incident of insult to her caste was made by the applicants and they do not want any action against them. The copy of the aforesaid compromise and application has been annexed along with the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 dated 05.04.2017. On the basis of the aforesaid compromise, application moved by the opposite party no.2, this Court has directed the parties to appear before the trial court concerned for verification of compromise vide order dated 06.04.2017 as already noted. The aforesaid compromise was duly verified by the trial court in presence of the parties vide order dated 29.06.2017. Certified copy of the said order has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 20.12.2017 filed by the applicants. 11. In State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others (supra), the Apex Court has held as under: " 15.1. that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4 . offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc." 12. In Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Apex Court has held as under: "61.The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 13. In Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466 , the Apex Court has held as under: "29. In Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466 , the Apex Court has held as under: "29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. 29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime." 14. In Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Apex Court has held as under: "(1) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. In Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Apex Court has held as under: "(1) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (5) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 15. In Shiji vs. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 , the Apex Court has held as under: "19. That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations.....will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose." 18.Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 48 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked." 16. Thus from the aforesaid judgments for the purposes of quashing of the proceedings involving the non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise, the following are the basic requirements : (a) That the dispute is of a private nature. It may be a commercial dispute, financial dispute, matrimonial dispute or a family dispute. (b) The dispute does not affect the society at large meaning thereby the allegations as made in the case do not affect the society at large. 17. Only on those circumstances, the proceedings can be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. If the allegations may affect the society at large, the proceedings involving non-compoundable offences cannot be fittingly quashed on the basis of compromise, even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute, which is not the intent of law nor it can be. 18. From perusal of the allegations as made in the instant FIR, it is apparent that those allegations do not relate to a private dispute between the parties rather the allegations which affect the society at large. 18. From perusal of the allegations as made in the instant FIR, it is apparent that those allegations do not relate to a private dispute between the parties rather the allegations which affect the society at large. While moving the application seeking withdrawal of the proceedings and alleging therein that no such incident has taken place, this gives a reasonable apprehension to the Court that the witnesses have either been win over or have been put under some kind of fear which compelled them to move such application in the instant case. 18. In view thereof, though the parties have entered into the settlement, in the considered opinion of this Court on the basis of such settlement as is being alleged, the proceedings cannot be quashed, which are affecting the society at large and do not relate to a private dispute between the parties. Thus the prayer for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of the said compromise is hereby rejected. Since the proceedings are pending before the trial court since long and due to the interim orders granted by this Court in favour of the applicants, therefore, the trial court is directed to proceed in the matter as expeditiously as possible. 19. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, granted to the applicants herein, is hereby vacated.