Rashid vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 8993 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9059 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Rashid
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Basharat Ali Khan,Balram Singh,Salman Ahmad
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

List revised.

Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, counsel for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Rashid with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 18.12.2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 542 of 2015, under Section 376 I.P.C., P.S.- Bhojipura, District Bareilly (Annexure-5) and the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 90 of 2016, State vs. Rashid and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 542 of 2015, under Section 376 I.P.C., P.S.- Bhojipura, District Bareilly pending before the court of learned F.T.C., Bareilly in the terms of compromise and with the further prayer to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid session trial during pendency of the present application.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the present matter four prosecution witnesses have been examined and subsequently the parties have entered into compromise, copy of the said compromise is annexure no. 6. It is argued that as such the proceedings of the case be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer and argued that offence is non-compoundable and as such the matter cannot be compounded. He placed reliance upon the judgment 15.3.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 8514 of 2023, Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and another.

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the offence is non-compoundable and as such the mater cannot be compounded. The prosecution in heinous offences such as rape, the victims do not have the freedom to compromise as if it were a compoundable offence or a civil cause. The State is the forerunner of the prosecution and it is the State who have to pursue the prosecution to its logical conclusion. The endeavour of the Court in a matter involving such a heinous offence is to determine the truth of the allegations. The purpose is not to persecute the accused nor is it to let him off, because his relations with the complainant has taken a happier turn. An offence of rape is an offence against the society, the truth of which has to be established before a Court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of whatever evidence is led at the trial. The accused may be acquitted if the charge is not proved, or if proved, he would be convicted. Short of that, the accused can say that he is entitled to be discharged at the appropriate stage. Of course, he will have that right, wherever the law permits and at whatever stage. In any eventuality, in a matter like the present one, this Court cannot interdict the prosecution and quash proceedings for the saying of the complainant, based on compromise between parties.

In these circumstances, this application is devoid of any merit and is rejected.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Order Date :- 27.3.2023

Naresh