Allahabad High Court
Raj Bahadur Gautam @ Bahadur @ Raj ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. ... on 16 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40726
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5713 of 2025
Applicant :- Raj Bahadur Gautam @ Bahadur @ Raj Bahadur Harijan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Anamika Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Ms. Anamika Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Satyendra Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the state; and Sri Paritosh Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 & 3, who has filed a short counter affidavit, which is taken on record.
2. By means of the instant application, the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 10/08/2019 and summoning/cognizance order dated 26/08/2019 along with other consequential proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 477/2019 (State Vs. Bahadur @ Raj Bahadur) arising out of FIR No. 203/2018, under Section 452, 506, 376 IPC, Police Station Aaspur Devsara, District Pratapgarh, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement by means of compromise deed dated 22/04/2025.
3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 04/08/2018, alleging that while his 18 years old daughter (opposite party No. 3) was alone at her home, the applicant entered the house and molested her. The informant came there, they caught him with the assistance of some villagers and took him to the police station. The medico legal examination report of the opposite party No. 3 did not reveal any mark of injury or sign of any use of force. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet on 10/08/2019 and the trial court took cognizance of the matter by means of the order dated 26/08/2019.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the trial court has framed charges in the case, and till date not even a single prosecution witness has been examined. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a compromise deed on 22/04/2025 stating that an FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding. Later on, the opposite party No. 3 has got married to some other person and now she is the mother of three children and leading a peaceful matrimonial life with her husband and children and she doesn't want to prosecute the applicant. The opposite party No. 3 has filed a counter affidavit on her behalf as well as on behalf of her father (the informant) admitting the facts supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.
5. 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."
6. 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.
7. Keeping in view of the fact that the allegation of commission of rape was not there either in the FIR or in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC; it was levelled for the first time during the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, but this allegation was not supported by the findings of the medical legal examination report; not even a single witness has been examined by the trial court till date; during this period, the victim has married someone else and has given birth to three children, and is living happily with her family and does not want to prosecute the case any further, I am of the view that the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law, discussed above, the application is allowed and the impugned charge-sheet dated 10/08/2019 and summoning/cognizance order dated 26/08/2019 along with other consequential proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 477/2019 (State Vs. Bahadur @ Raj Bahadur) arising out of FIR No. 203/2018, under Section 452, 506, 376 IPC, Police Station Aaspur Devsara, District Pratapgarh are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 16.7.2025
(Manoj K.)
