Allahabad High Court
Ankush Vishwakarma @ Sachin @ Ankur ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. ... on 25 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49918
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1027 of 2025
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
1. Sri Paritosh Shukla, Advocate, has put in appearance and filedhis Vakalatnamaalong withshort counter affidaviton behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3andthe same is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and 3, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Sessions Trial No.1145/2024 (State Vs. Sachin & Ankur Vishwakarma), arising out of FIR No.0199/2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) and 352 B.N.S read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act lodged at Police Station Jethwara, District Pratapgarh, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh and to quash the orders dated 05.10.2024 and 10.10.2024 passed in the aforesaid case on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement/compromise.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged victim was more than 17 years of age at the time of alleged incident and due to some misconception the FIR was lodged and the allegation with respect to committing rape has also been levelled though there is no truthfulness in the same. She submits that there is nothing in the medical report so as to commit rape. She added that behind the curtain; the story was that the marriage of the alleged victim was proposed with the applicant and due to some reason; the same could not take place and under annoyance the FIR was lodged but subsequently the good sense prevailed and the family members of the alleged victim decided to perform marriage of the alleged victim somewhere else and if the criminal proceeding is allowed that would unnecessarily create a hurdle and subsequent relation shall hamper and the alleged victim would not be in a position to settle her marital life.
5. She also submitted that the both the parties sat together and they have settled the dispute amicably andcompromise deed has been reduced in writing on 22.07.2025, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure8 to the instant application. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicant are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicant and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 i.e the complainant and the alleged victim has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served if the criminal proceeding is allowed to go on against the applicant as the FIR was lodged and some serious allegations are levelled by the alleged victim under some misconception and there is no truthfulness in the same. The parties have settled their dispute amicably through the compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicant and the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be dropped.
7. Learned A.G.A., appearing for the State, has opposed the matter on merit but he has no objection if the parties have settled their dispute amicably.
8. This Court is also aware of the ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar and Others versus State of Maharashtra and Another in SLP (Crl.) No.7212 of 2025 wherein it has has held that if the alleged victim has settled her life by performing marriage since long back and is not interested to pursue the case, allowing further criminal proceeding would prolong the distress for all concern especially the complainant and the victim and the exercise of the trial would likelihood of no productive outcome.
9. Paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment is referred as follows:-
"7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More Importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome"
10. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, particularly, the fact that the family members of the alleged victim are proceeding to perform marriage of the alleged victim and the criminal proceeding can create a hurdle in marital life of the victim and further the fact that the parties sat together and settled their dispute by saying that under some misconception the FIR was lodged, this Court finds that the matter may be referred to the trial Court for verification of the compromise deed.
11. In view of aforesaid, this application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.
12. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
13. For a period of three months, furtherproceedings in Sessions Trial No.1145/2024 (State Vs. Sachin & Ankur Vishwakarma), pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh shall remain stayed.
14. The trial court is further directed for ensuring the fact that all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed are present before the trial Court and a report with respect to this effect shall also be sent alongwith verification order.
15. The applicant is directed to produce the original compromise deed dated 22.07.2025 before the learned trial Court.
16. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed, if any, to the applicant within a week.
.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
August 25, 2025
MVS/-
