Allahabad High Court
Shiv Bahadur And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 23 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42557
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2331 of 2022
Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Pal,Surya Kant Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Surya Kant Singh, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dhirendra Praap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the impugned charge sheet No. 135/2019, cognizance order dated 13.03.2020, non bailable warrant dated 12.04.2022 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 106 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 202/2019, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Shivratanganj, District Amethi, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Vth, Raebareli.
3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 23.10.2019 against the applicant, in furtherance of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the accused persons had raped her in the evening of 07.06.2019, when she had gone to a field for attending the call of nature.
4. In the statement of the opposite party no. 2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she revoked the allegation of commission of rape and she restricted the allegation to the extent that her clothes had been torn. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a compromise on 22.04.2022 wherein it is recorded that the opposite party no. 2 has resolved her disputes with the applicant and she does not want any proceedings to continue against the applicant.
5. The Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli had submitted a report dated 17.05.2022 stating that the genuineness of the compromise has been verified by the trial court in furtherance of the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by this Court.
6. 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."
7. 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.
8. In view of the fact that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the informant has not levelled the allegation of rape and now the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and the impugned charge sheet No. 135/2019, cognizance order dated 13.03.2020, non bailable warrant dated 12.04.2022 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 106 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 202/2019, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Shivratanganj, District Amethi, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Vth, Raebareli, are quashed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2025
Pradeep/-
