Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2025 DIGILAW 940 (SC)

Pawan Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025-04-08

B.V.NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant herein had preferred an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), seeking quashing of the entire proceedings as well as charge sheet No.31 of 2023 and cognizance order dated 29.03.2023 in Case No.3398 of 2023 (State vs. Pawan Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.0260 of 2022 under Sections 354-C, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short) and Sections 67-A and 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("IT Act" for short) registered in Police Station Hathras Junction, District Hathras and it was pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. The High Court by its order dated 01.10.2024 dismissed the said application. However, in paragraph 6 the High Court has recorded as under: "6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, it is evident that the applicant is an accused in the present case in which a first information report was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 04.09.2022. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet dated 25.02.2023 was submitted against the applicant for offences under Sections 354-C, 376, 506 IPC & 67-A, 66-C Information Technology Act on which the court concerned took cognizance and summoned him vide order dated 29.03.2023. Subsequently it appears that the parties entered into a compromise. An application along with affidavit of the opposite party No.2 dated 07.02.2024 was filed before the court concerned. The said affidavit of the opposite party no.2 stating that she does not want to contest the case further and wants to settle the same was sent for verification by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2024. The said compromise was verified vide order dated 27.08.2024 by the Judicial Magistrate, Hathras and a report to the said effect was sent to this court. The proceedings in the present matter relates to offence which are non-compoundable. The judgment relied by learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Kapil Gupta (supra) is of no help to him since the Apex Court has in paragraph 17 of the same clarified that it has exercised its extraordinary powers to quash the criminal proceedings. The proceedings in the present matter relates to offence which are non-compoundable. The judgment relied by learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Kapil Gupta (supra) is of no help to him since the Apex Court has in paragraph 17 of the same clarified that it has exercised its extraordinary powers to quash the criminal proceedings. Although compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court concerned but the proceedings in the present matter are under Sections 354-C, 376, 506 IPC & 67-A, 66-C Information Technology Act which cannot be compounded in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of In RE: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2023) decided on 20.08.2024 paragraph 22, 23 & 23.1. No ground is made out." 3. It is in the above backdrop that the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the first respondent-State and learned counsel for the second respondent-complainant and perused the material on record. 5. During the course of submissions learned counsel for the appellant as well as the second respondent drew our attention to the settlement agreement, the agreement letter/affidavit of the second respondent and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, all dated 27.08.2024. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to two orders of this Court arising in Crl.A.NO.4928 of 2024 (Nitin Bhargav vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another) and judgment in Crl.A.NO.2343 of 2023 (Haji Iqbal @ Bala thorugh SPOA vs. State of UP and others). In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that taking note of the aforesaid material on record, this court may exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and quash the complaint and the subsequent proceedings arising out of the complaint against the appellant herein. In other words, there is a consensus between the appellant as well as the second respondent for quashing of the aforesaid complaint and all proceedings arising from the said complaint. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent State submitted that having regard to the material on record and the submissions made by the respective parties, appropriate orders may be made. 8. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent State submitted that having regard to the material on record and the submissions made by the respective parties, appropriate orders may be made. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced at the bar in light of what has been expressed by the High Court in paragraph 6 of the impugned order extracted above. 9. The terms of the Settlement letter dated 27.08.2024 reads as under: "1. That the above case has been registered by the complainant/first party against the accused/second party. 2. That the plaintiff/first party had given a written complaint in the police station Hathras Junction due to misunderstanding on the basis of which the above case was registered which is pending in the court of Hon'ble Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. 3. That the complainant/first party has not made an obscene video or done any wrong act like rape due to misunderstanding and neither has be abused or threatened to kill. 4. That the statement recorded in the Hon'ble Court by the complainant/first party under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded under police pressure, there is no such allegation against the second party. 5. That the mobile no.8439393552 belongs to the complainant/first party. 6. That in relation to the above, I had earlier submitted an affidavit to this effect in the Hon'ble Court voluntarily without any pressure and I stand by it even today. 7. That both of us do not have any animosity or ill will towards each other now and neither do we have any interest in continuing the said case. 8. That the present settlement is being represented before this Hon'ble Court as per the order dated 29.07.2024 passed in Pawan Kumar vs State of UP by the Honb'ble High Court, Allahabad in the Application No.13497/24 under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the accused/second party. So that the Hon'ble Court can verify the settlement and accordingly inform the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad. 9. That both of us do not want to pursue the matter further. 10. That on the basis of the settlement between both the parties, please pass an order in the interest of justice to decide the said case at this stage." 10. The agreement letter/affidavit dated 27.08.2024 reads as under: "1. That the deponent is a permanent resident of the above mentioned name and address. 2. 10. That on the basis of the settlement between both the parties, please pass an order in the interest of justice to decide the said case at this stage." 10. The agreement letter/affidavit dated 27.08.2024 reads as under: "1. That the deponent is a permanent resident of the above mentioned name and address. 2. That the deponent, by mistake and in misunderstanding, had lodged a case against Pawan Kumar son of Sukhram resident of village Nagla Gularia, Police Station Hajj, District-Hathras, under Sections 67A, 66 C.I.Tact and 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Hajj, District-Hathras. 3. That the abvoe Pawan Kumar of the deponent neither made any obscene video nor did he do any wrong thing with me nor threatened to kill me. 4. That Pawan Kumar works in the army. 5. That the mobile number of the deponent 8439393552 is in the name of the deponent. 6. That the above Pawan Kumar has not raped me. I had given the statement of Section 161 CrPC and Section 164 crPC under pressure from the police. 7. That I, the deponent, am making the true statement known through the affidavit." 11. The order of the Judicial Magistrate, Hathras dated 27.08.2024 reads as under: "Today on 27.098.2024, both the parties along with their learned advocates appeared. The agreement letter/settlement presented by them dated 29.07.2024 is filed. The photo and signature of the complainant Parvati Devi alias Payal Chaudhary were identified by her learned advocate Mr. Amod Kumar and the photo and signature of the accused Pawan Kumar were identified by his learned advocate Mr. V.K.Sisodia. The order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 29.07.2024 is filed on the file in which it has been directed by the Hon'ble High Court that both the parties should appear before this court with order and the Court should verify the said agreement letter/settlement letter and send its report in this regard within two weeks. In compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court, both the parties have appeared before this court and the agreement letter/settlement letter dated 29.07.2024 was verified by them in open court with the free consent of both the parties. The report should be sent along with the verified copy of the agreement letter/settlement letter in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Advance order for the file should be presented on the next date." 12. The report should be sent along with the verified copy of the agreement letter/settlement letter in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Advance order for the file should be presented on the next date." 12. We have perused the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. The relevant portions of which reads as under: (Crl.A.NO.4928 of 2024 (Nitin Bhargav vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another) and judgment in Crl.A.NO.2343 of 2023 (Haji Iqbal @ Bala thorugh SPOA vs. State of UP and others) (RELEVANT PORTIONS ...) 13. On perusal of the judgment of this court in Hazi Iqbal it is noted that there were no offences alleged against the accused therein under Section 376D of IPC. In the same way, we note that in the instant case, there were no allegations alleged in respect of Section 376 IPC as against the appellant herein. It was in the FIR and it was only later that the second respondent has stated that the said allegation was made under police pressure by giving her statement under Section 164 of CrPC. 14. In the circumstances, we find that the allegation under Section 376 IPC was virtually false as the said allegation could not find place in the first instance in the FIR. 15. In the circumstances, we find that having regard to the settlement arrived at between the parties as recorded above and bearing in mind what has been expressed by the High Court, this is a fit case, where we ought to exercise and we exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and quash the complaint in Case Crime No.0260 of 2022 filed by the second respondent as against the appellant herein and consequently all proceedings arising out of the said complaint. 16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.