Mohd. Ekbal vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2024 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohd. Ekbal vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 17 July, 2025

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116272
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10017 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Mohd. Ekbal
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Najakat Ali
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA representing State-respondent and perused the record on board.

2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 76 of 2021 (Mohd. Ekbal Vs. Mohd. Rasheed and others) pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act, Rampur as well as summoning order dated 23.05.2022 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Rampur, under Sections 323, 354, 354Kha, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Polilce Station Tanda, District Rampur.

3. Present applicant, namely, Mohd. Ekbal has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was subsequently treated as a complaint and summoning order dated 23.05.2022 (Annuxure No. 3) has been passed issuing summons against the respondent nos. 2 to 5. Thus, instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the complainant.

4. During pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 25.01.2024, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, the order dated 25.01.2024 is quoted hereinbelow:

"Learned counsel for the applicant is present.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the first informant and he has prayed to quash the complaint filed by him with regard to his 17 years old daughter. The charge-sheet against the opposite parties has been filed under Sections 323, 354, 354kha, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act.

According to learned counsel for the applicant, the parties have arrived at a compromise. As the Sections involved are non-compoundable, hence, the parties alongwith victim are directed to appear before the trial court within 15 days from today alongwith their compromise deed. If the parties alongwith victim appear before the trial court within the time stipulated, the trial court shall verify the said compromise deed, pass a verification order thereon and transmit the certified copy of the verified compromise deed alongwith the certified copy of the verification order passed thereon, to this Court within 15 days thereafter.

List on 27.02.2024"

5. In compliance of the order dated 25.01.2024, learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Rampur has submitted compromise verification report dated 07.03.2024 along with compromise verification order dated 02.03.2024, compromise application, statement of Mohd. Ekbal (complainant-applicant herein), statement of victim, statement of Abdul Rasheed (accused-C.W.-1) and statement of Mohd. Sageer (accused-C.W.-2). As per statement of victim (P.W.-2), on the date of occurrence of offence dated 09.08.2021, quarrel took place between the applicant and her father. However, at present she is married and is living a peaceful married life with her in-laws, and does not want to prosecute the case against the accused. Complainant (applicant herein) has stated in his statement, being P.W.-1, that on the date of occurrence of offence, both the parties had got into brawl, however due to intervention of the relatives of both the sides, matter subsides. Complainant is no longer inclined to prosecute the matter against the accused persons. It is apposite to mention that one of the accused, namely Naveel s/o Abdul Rasheed is not the signatory of the compromise which is evident from the order dated 02.03.2024. At the bottom of second page of compromise, it is averred below the name of Naveel that presently he is working in Saudi Arabia, thus, compromise would not be verified to his extent.

6. Having considered the statement of victim, complainant and accused, learned Special Judge, POCSO Act has verified the compromise in their presence (except Naveel s/o Abdul Rasheed) who have been identified by their respective counsel. It is further observed that both the parties have stated that they entered into compromise out the their ownvolition without any duress and buried the hatchet. Accordingly, compromise (paper no. 15Kha) has been verified in compliance of the order passed by the High Court. For ready reference, compromise order dated 02.03.2024 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"?????? ???? ????????, ???????? ?? ???? ???????? 27.02.2024 ????????? ???? ???????? ???? 482 ?????? 10017/2023 ??????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ?????????? ??????? ?????? 15 ? ?? ??? ???? 16 ? ??????? 03.03.2024 ???? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????, ???????, ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??, ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?????????? ?????? ????, ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????, ????????, ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?????? 15 ? ?????? ???? ????????, ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????? ????, ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????????? ????? ???? ???? ??????"

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

8. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :-

"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice./ The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

9. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

10. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

11. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement/agreement inked between the parties, except Mr. Naveel s/o Abdul Rasheed (respondent no. 4 herein), who was in Saudi Arabia at the time of verification of compromise, the present application under Section 482 is hereby allowedin part. The criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed, except to the extent of Naveel (respondent no. 4).

12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.

Order Date :- 17.7.2025

Aiman