Ashiq Ali vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2042 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ashiq Ali vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 17 July, 2025

Author: Gautam Chowdhary

Bench: Gautam Chowdhary

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115968
 
Court No. - 70
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11683 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Ashiq Ali
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Alauddin,Fakhruddin
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raman Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Chandan Sihngh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Raman Pandey, learned counsel for the victim-opposite party No. 5 and perused the material placed on record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing of entire proceeding of Special Criminal (Sexual) Case No. 410 of 2021 (State Vs. Ashiq Ali), arising out of Case Crime No. 13 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Mishrauliya, District Siddharth Nagar, pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Siddharth Nagar, as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 03.03.2021 and also to quash the cognizance order dated 23.03.2021 passed in the aforesaid case.

3. On 29.05.2025 this Court had passed the following order :-

"1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application has been preferred on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties. He next submits that the applicant has solemnized marriage with the victim, i.e. opposite party no. 5 and living together as husband and wife.

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Jogiya Udaipur, District Siddharth Nagar, is directed to verify the veracity of the compromise by recording the statement of the victim/complainant and submit a detailed report in this regard through the Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, on or before the next date of listing.

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

4. In deference to the aforesaid order dated 29.05.2025, learned A.G.A. has filed police report supported by the statements of the victim and the applicant. The said statements annexed with the police report are taken on record and are marked as 'X', 'Y' and 'Z'. In her statement the victim had clearly stated that she went with the applicant to Chhatisgarh at the time of occurrence, thereafter she solemnized court marriage with him out of her own free will and consent and now they are living as husband and wife without any force.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the statement of the victim, it is evident that F.I.R. was lodged by the informant-opposite party No. 4 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. As per the instructions brought on record by the learned A.G.A., the victim had solemnized marriage with the applicant on her own consent and free will and both are living happily as husband and wife since long from the year 2022, therefore, there was no criminal intent on the part of the applicant and that no criminal offence has been committed by him.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the victim-opposite party No. 5 do not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him and they have no objection, if the present proceedings pending against the applicant in the aforesaid case are quashed in the light of the Judgments of Apex Court in the case of 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.

7. 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."

8. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab : (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand : (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat : (2017) 9 SCC 641, and has submitted that since the applicant and the victim have solemnized marriage and now they are living happily as husband and wife, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

9. In such circumstances, it appears that the informant-opposite party No. 4 and the victim-opposite party No. 5, who would be the key prosecution witnesses, if the trial were to proceed, have declared their 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.

10. 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 of 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.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties and taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra), Yogendra Yadav (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, so far as it relates to the present applicant, are hereby quashed.

12. Accordingly, the present application u/s 528 B.N.S.S is allowed.

Order Date :- 17.7.2025

Mustaqeem.