Allahabad High Court
Anil Paswan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 January, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36096 of 2022
Applicant :- Anil Paswan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Chaurasia
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anant Prakash Mishra
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Chaurasia, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. A.P. Mishra, the learned counsel representing opposite party 2.
Challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 300 of 2020 (State Vs. Anil Paswan) arising out of Case Crime No. 362 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, Police Station-Dullahpur, District-Ghazipur now pending in court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ghazipur in view of the compromise entered into by the parties.
Record shows that during pendency of aforementioned Sessions Trial parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. As per the settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise deed dated 07.01.2021 was drawn. The said compromise was arrived at between the parties, in view of the fact that they have solemnized marriage on 07.01.2021 and are residing together as husband and wife.
On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that no cause of action now survives with the opposite party 2 to pursue aforementioned Sessions Trial. The dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute which has been amicably settled on the basis of compromise. Crime alleged to have been committed by applicant is not a crime against society. He, therefore, submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the entire proceedings of aforementioned case are liable to be quashed by this Court. In case, the proceedings of aforementioned Sessions Trial are allowed to continue a happy family shall stand broken.
Moreover, the chances of conviction of applicant are now bleak and remote. The proceedings of above mentioned trial if allowed to continue will result is injustice to the parties because of the compromise entered into by them. He, therefore, submits that the entire proceedings of aforementioned Sessions Trial are therefore liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application on the ground that since the crime alleged to have been committed by applicant is punishable under the POCSO Act also, therefore, the proceedings of above-mentioned Sessions Trial cannot be terminated, in view of above, the compromise entered into by the parties. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman, N.K. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s) 24362 of 2022. However the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual submission urged by the learned counsel for applicant.
Mr. A.P. Mishra, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party 2 i.e. the prosecutrix, however, does not oppose the present application. He submits that once the prosecutrix has herself solemnized marriage with applicant and is residing with applicant as his legally wedded wife, she now cannot have any grievance, in case, the entire proceedings of above-mentioned Sessions Trial are quashed by this Court.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of Supreme Court :-
i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675
ii. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582
iii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
iv. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1
v. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705
vi. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
vii. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226
viii. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497
ix. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466
x. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653
xi. Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721
xii. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389
xiii. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350
xiv. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641
xv. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290
xvi. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)
xvii. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570
xviii. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688
xix. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
xx. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736
xxi. (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834
xxii. Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online 936.
xxiii. State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021
Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. A.P. Mishra, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party 2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society.
It is also an undisputed fact that applicant and the prosecutrix have solemnized marriage and are living together as husband and wife. In such a situation, in case, proceedings of above-mentioned Sessions Trial are allowed to continue, the same shall cause injustice to the parties. A happy family shall stand broken. The chances of conviction of applicant are now not only remote but also bleak. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.
In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Consequently, entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 300 of 2020 (State Vs. Anil Paswan) arising out of Case Crime No. 362 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, Police Station-Dullahpur, District-Ghazipur now pending in court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ghazipur are hereby quashed.
Application is accordingly allowed.
Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 19.1.2023
Vinay
