Pankaj Alias Deepankar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2035 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Pankaj Alias Deepankar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 July, 2025

Author: Gautam Chowdhary

Bench: Gautam Chowdhary

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116114
 
Court No. - 70
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17226 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Pankaj Alias Deepankar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Balkrishna Kanhere,Satyajeet Singh
 
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 Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2017 (State Vs. Pankaj @ Deepankar) arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2016, Case No. 49 of 2019 under Sect ions 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kuthand, District Jalaun at Orai pending before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Ju8dge (POCSO Act ) Court NO.1, District Jalaun at Orai.

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

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the matter between the parties has amicable been resolved and the applicant has solemnized marriage with respondent no.2/victim and two children have been borne out of the said wedlock. Therefore, the proceedings of the case may be quashed based on compromise.

3. The concerned Station House Officer is hereby directed to verify the aforesaid facts and place a verification report on the next date of hearing.

4. The respondent no.2/victim is directed to remain present virtually through video conference on the next date of hearing.

5. Put up this case as fresh on 17.07.2025."

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 29.05.2025, the victim instead of appearing through video conferencing is physically present before this Court, who has been identified by Ravindra Balkrishna Kanhera, learned counsel for the applicant. The victim has stated before this Court that she ought to be present through video conferencing but she do not know how to ensure her presence through video conferencing and that is why she is physically present before this Court. It has also been stated by the victim that she has solemnised marriage with the applicant in the year 2017 and since then she is living with him and two children were also born. The victim has also stated that neither she has been enticed away nor anyone has kidnapped her and she has gone out of her own free will and consent. The statement of the victim has been recorded separately on a plain paper and is kept on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the statement of victim it is evident and amply clear that FIR had come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 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. 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 in view of the statement of the victim, 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 that the applicant and the victim are living together since last more than 08 years and it appears that the dispute have been amicably settled. Thus, it further appears that the opposite party no.2, 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