Allahabad High Court
Mamta @ Sona Devi And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 10 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39520
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 534 of 2025
Applicant :- Mamta @ Sona Devi And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sachida Nand Tiwari,Rahul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Avishesh Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Karan Singh, the learned counsel for opposite party No.3 and perused the record. Short counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for opposite party No.3 is taken on record.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 07.02.2025, the summoning order dated 19.02.2025 issued by the Ld. A.C.J.M. Sultanpur under Case Crime No.298 of 2024 under Sections 281/64/74/115(2)/352/3(5) of BNS registered at Police Station- Jaysingpur, District- Sultanpur.
3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 04.11.2024 stating that all the accused persons had beaten up the informant. Subsequently, during investigation, the allegation of rape was also levelled but this allegation was not supported by the findings of the medico-legal examination report.
4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 07.02.2025 and the trial Court took cognizance of the offence on 19.02.2025.
5. The applicants have sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground that a compromise dated 03.04.2025 entered into between the parties stating that the parties are related to each other and the FIR was lodged due to instigation of some outsiders. The parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at a compromise. The parties have confirmed the terms of compromise.
6. Opposite party No.3 does not have any objection, if the impugned proceedings are quashed against the applicants.
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in light of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when the allegation of rape was not there in the FIR and although it is levelled subsequently, this allegation is not supported by the findings of the medico-legal examination report. The parties belong to one family and they have resolved their dispute amicably outside the court.
10. In view of the law as discussed above, the application is allowed and the charge-sheet dated 07.02.2025, the summoning order dated 19.02.2025 issued by the Ld. A.C.J.M. Sultanpur under Case Crime No.298 of 2024 under Sections 281/64/74/115(2)/352/3(5) of BNS registered at Police Station- Jaysingpur, District- Sultanpur are quashed.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Order Date :- 10.7.2025
-Amit K-
