Allahabad High Court
Shakoor @ Laddan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 September, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:166400
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34569 of 2025
Shakoor @ Laddan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ashok Kumar Singh, Preet Pal Singh Rathore
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
2. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 5209/2016 (arising out of Case Crime No. 46/1990 and Case No. 3166/1990) under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Quila, District- Bareilly, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-III, Bareilly.
3. Counsel for applicant has submitted that FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2, who is no more, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. against the co-accused Nawab Hasan for eloping her daughter Nighat Parveen (opposite party no. 3). Subsequently, after running away from the house, opposite party no. 3 got married with main accused Nawab Hasan though no allegation was made against the applicant for committing rape and the police has filed charge sheet under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C.
4. It is jointly submitted by learned counsel for the applicant as well as opposite party no.3 that now the applicant and opposite party no. 3 have settled their dispute and a written compromise has also been entered into between them and a copy of the same is annexed at page 45 of the instant application.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned proceedings have already been challenged by the applicant as well as main co-accused Nawab Hasan in Application U/S 482 No. 9040 of 1990 in which interim protection was also granted and simultaneously the said application was dismissed for want of prosecution in the year 1997. Subsequently, the court below has issued warrant against the applicant in view of judgement passed by the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 SCC 310, case on 12.01.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that it is in pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 18.06.2025 passed in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 16868 of 2025 that the parties were directed to appear before the trial court for verification of the compromise. It has been next submitted that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.03, Bareilly by means of the order dated 04.08.2025 has verified the compromise entered between the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that by means of the compromise dated 06.05.2025 the parties have settled their differences and agreed not to prosecute the criminal proceedings. It has further been stated that the instant criminal proceedings have been initiated on the pressure of the police.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the fact that the main accused has already been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 09.05.1995 passed by the IX Additional and Sessions Judge, Bareilly and more than three and half decades have been passed.
9. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection if the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings are quashed in terms of the compromise between the parties.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:-
"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:
i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
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 vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."
11. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,
(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,
(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
12. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the trial Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.
14. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, proceedings of Case No. 5209/2016 (arising out of Case Crime No. 46/1990 and Case No. 3166/1990) under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Quila, District- Bareilly, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-III, Bareilly, qua the present applicants is hereby quashed.
(Alok Mathur,J.)
September 17, 2025
AS
