Allahabad High Court
Saheban vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 8 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:157761
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43726 of 2019
Saheban
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Anr
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Anil Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Ashwini Kumar Singh, G.A., Manju Pandey, Sanjay Kumar Singh
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Ojha learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Moti Lal learned AGA for the State and Sri Manju Pandey and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing Charge-sheet dated 17.5.2019, Criminal Case No.2394 of 2019 (State vs. Saheban), arising out of Case Crime No. 381 of 2018, under Sections 376, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station. Loni, District. Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.I, Ghaziabad as well as cognizance order dated 15.7.2019.
3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under sections 376, 323, 506 IPC, being FIR no. 0381 of 2018 on 5.4.2018 with an allegations that the applicant herein had extended false assurance to solemnize marriage with the opposite party no.2 and used to outrage the modesty of the opposite party no.2. Post recording of the statements, a charge sheet came to be submitted against the applicant on 17.5.2019 under sections 376, 323, 506 IPC.
4. Questioning the same, the applicant has filed the present application in which on 5.12.2019 the following order has been passed:-
?Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the Charge.sheet dated 17.5.2019, Criminal Case No.2394 of 2019 (State vs. Saheban), arising out of Case Crime No. 381 of 2018, under Sections 376, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station. Loni, District. Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.I, Ghaziabad as well as cognizance order dated 15.7.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the prosecutrix is aged between 35.37 years and is mother of 10 years old son and the applicant is also a married man and has three issues. The allegation made by the prosecutrix is totally false and frivolous. The proceedings instituted by opposite party no.2 smacks of mala fide.
In view of above, matter requires scrutiny.
Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of State.opposite party no.1.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within six weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this case in the week commencing 10.2.2020.
Till the the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed so far as the applicant is concerned.
5. A supplementary affidavit is available on record dated 13.12.2024, Annexure-S.A.-1 at page 5 of the paper book reference whereof has been made in para 2 of the application that the parties have entered into compromise on 26.9.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that once the parties have entered into compromise, then a direction be issued to the court below to verify the compromise. He has further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is a mother of a baby aged about 40 years and once the parties have entered into compromise then there remains nothing to be further proceeded particularly when both the parties have taken their own ways.
7. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon. Apex Court in Madhukar and others Prabhakar v. State of Maharashtra and another 2025, Lawsuit (SC)-914.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and he does not intend to further prosecute the proceedings.
9. Learned AGA has submitted that once the parties have compromised, then looking into the aforesaid factual aspects and the judgment of Hon.
Apex Court in Madhukar (supra) a direction be issued to verify the compromise.
10. In Madhukar (supra), the following was observed:-
?[5] It is brought to our attention that both parties have categorically taken the stand before this Court that they have resolved their disputes amicably and are desirous of moving on with their lives. The complainant in the 2nd FIR, now married and residing with her husband, has expressed that continuation of the prosecution would cause further disruption in her personal life and that she has no wish to support the charges or pursue the matter any further.
[6] At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.
[7] In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.
[8] Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process.?
11. Bearing in mind that the parties have entered into compromise and they want to live according to their own ways and respectfully following the judgment in Madhukar (supra), the application stands disposed of, directing the applicant (parties) to submit a self-attested copy of the present application, supplementary affidavit, certified copy of the order passed today, as well as the original copy of the compromise before the court below by 26.9.2025. On the said motion, the court below shall verify the compromise strictly in accordance with the law.
12. Till verification is done, no coercive action be taken against the applicant with respect to the Criminal Case No.2394 of 2019 (State vs. Saheban), arising out of Case Crime No. 381 of 2018, under Sections 376, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station. Loni, District. Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.I, Ghaziabad as well as cognizance order dated 15.7.2019
13. The protection accorded to the applicant is only available subject to compliance of terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench.
14. Original copy of the compromise shall be returned subject to submission of photocopy.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 8, 2025
piyush
