Allahabad High Court
Chandan @ Sonu Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 3 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37886
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3580 of 2025
Applicant :- Chandan @ Sonu Yadav And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Vivek Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hansraj Verma, learned A.G.A for the State, Sri Himanshu Shukla, holding brief of Sri Krishna Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C/ 528 B.N.S.S. the applicant has sought quashing of the entire proceeding of Session Trial No. 1037/2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 440 of 2022, under Sections 376, 504 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act & 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki pending in the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Barabanki, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 12.05.2022 against the applicants stating that applicant no. 1 made physical relations with the informant under allurement of marrying her but thereafter he declined to marry her. After investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet on 06.07.2022 and the trial court took cognizance of the offences. Meanwhile, the informant has married the applicant no. 1 on 12.04.2023. Her statement has been recorded by the trial court and she has been declared to be hostile. On 16.04.2025, the parties have executed a settlement deed stating that the informant is residing with the applicant no. 1 as his wife and there is no dispute between the parties and she does not want any proceeding to continue against the applicant.
4. A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a certified copy of an order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Session Trial No. 1037 of 2022, whereby genuineness of the compromise has been verified.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the prayer made by the applicant and has given his consent for proceedings being quashed on the basis of compromise.
6. In the case of Bahori Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Another 2024 SCC OnLine All 4596, this Court has examined the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1186, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531, Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030 and has culled out the following principles from the aforesaid judgments:
"27. ....... the inherent powers of the High Courts recognized by Section 482 Cr. P.C. are wide and can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings, but the power has to be exercised judiciously and consciously. The High Courts can exercise their jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law is clearly made out. Such powers ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind the nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society; the seriousness of the injury,if any, the voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim, the conduct of the accused persons and the other relevant considerations. Though the Courts should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there is sufficient evidence which may lead to proving the charges. The High Court can quash the proceedings even in cases where the parties have entered into a settlement after conviction for a heinous offence carrying a maximum punishment for life. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast rule restricting the powers of the High Court to do substantial justice, as a restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may lead to grave injustice."
7. In the case of K. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, an FIR under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 was registered alleging that the appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, which amounted to committing rape. He was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence. In appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the allegation against the appellant was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, whereas he had in fact married the prosecutrix and they had two children and they were being taken care of by the appellant and she was leading a happy married life. The prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. After taking into consideration these facts, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant in view of the subsequent events by observing that ?This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.? However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also expressed that the order shall not be treated as a precedent.
8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, I am of the view that the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed andthe entire proceeding of Session Trial No. 1037/2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 440 of 2022, under Sections 376, 504 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act & 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barbabki, pending in the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Barabanki, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 3.7.2025
Pradeep/-
