Allahabad High Court
Shivam And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:180109
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9978 of 2024
Shivam And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Upendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Santosh Kumar Pandey
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 509 of 2024 (State vs. Shivam and others), charge sheet dated 22.04.2023 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Kasya, Kushinagar arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2022, under Sections 363, 504, 366, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Pataherwa, District Kushinagar, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Kasya, Kushinagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant no. 1 and daughter of opposite party no. 2 had married with each other and they are living as husband and wife. He further stated that the victim girl has stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she went with the applicant no. 1 and 3 on her own sweet will from which it is clear that she is consenting party. She further stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she went with the applicant no. 1 to Deoria with her sweet will and no one had enticed her to go away in any manner.
4. Further contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that now the applicant no.1 and the daughter of opposite party no.2 are living as husband and wife and both the parties have entered into compromise.
5. This Court vide order dated 13.08.2025 has directed the parties to file compromise deed before the court below with further direction to the court below to verify the same after summoning the parties and also send the report to this Court.
6. In pursuance of order dated 13.08.2025 of this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushinagar has verified the compromise and submitted its report dated 23.01.2025 along with copy of verified compromise.
7. The facts of entering into compromise between applicant no.1 and daughter of opposite party no.2 is that they are living as husband and wife, which is also not disputed by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
8. Considering the fact that applicant no.1 and daughter of opposite party no.2, both are willingly married. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 observed in paragraph no.61 as under:-
"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 flavour 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. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan observed in paragraph no.13.4 as under:-
"iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;"
10. Therefore, in such peculiar facts and circumstances, it would be unfair and contrary to interest of justice to continue with impugned criminal proceeding.
11. In view of the above facts and legal position as well as law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and State of M.P. Vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 509 of 2024 (State vs. Shivam and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2022, under Sections 363, 504, 366, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Pataherwa, District Kushinagar, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Kasya, Kushinagar, is hereby quashed.
12. In view of the aforesaid observations, the application is allowed.
(Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)
October 9, 2025
Manoj
