Abhishek Nishad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2027 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Abhishek Nishad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 July, 2025

Author: Gautam Chowdhary

Bench: Gautam Chowdhary

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115887
 
Court No. - 70
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17910 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Abhishek Nishad
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Kumari,Rajesh Kumar Nishad
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the material on record.

2. The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 1742 of 2017 (State Vs.Abhishek Nishad) arising out of Case Crime No. 255 of 2017 under Sections 376, 420, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POSCO Act, Police Station Gulriha, District Gorakhpur pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.2, District Gorakhpur and also to quash the charge sheet dated 31.07.2017 filed in the aforesaid case as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 11.08.2017 passed in the aforesaid case.

3. On 20.05.2025 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order :-

"1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has solemnized marriage with the victim, i.e., opposite party no. 4, and that two children have been born out of the said wedlock.

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Gulriha, District Gorakhpur, is directed to verify the aforesaid claim by recording the statement of the victim, and submit a report in this regard on or before the next date fixed.

3. List this matter as fresh on 29.05.2025."

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 20.05.2025, learned A.G.A. has filed compliance affidavit wherein the statement of the victim and her father (first informant) were recorded and that the victim has stated that she has solemnised marriage out of her own free will and consent and out said wedlock two children were also born. The informant has also stated that his daughter has solemnised marriage with applicant and out her own free will and he has no objection with the marriage. The statements of the victim and her father (first Informant) are annexed as Annexure-1 to the compliance affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the statement of victim and her father, it is evident and amply clear that FIR had come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 4 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. They realise that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

7. It is contended that in view of the said compromise, the pending proceedings before the court below be quashed in the light of the Judgments of Apex Court in the case B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.

8. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that;

"the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

9. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.4 have settled their differences and as such opposite party no.4 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. Perusal of the statement of the opposite party no.4 recorded by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the order of this Court also shows that no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

10. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have settled their real disputes amicably. Thus, it further appears that the opposite party no.4, who would be the key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.

11. The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of the present case and other similar cases present where, though allegations made in the FIR do contain ingredients of an offence. However, in view such settlement having been reached, the chances of conviction are not only bleak but if such trials are allowed to continue along with all other trials that lie piled up in practically all criminal courts in the state, the continuance of trials in cases such as the instant case may only work to the huge disadvantage of other cases where litigants are crying for justice.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303, Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

13. The instant application is allowed.

Order Date :- 17.7.2025

S.Ali