Pawan Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1552

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA AND SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Pawan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1871 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition(s) (Criminal) No. 2957 of 2025)
Decided on : 08-04-2025

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354-C, 376, 506 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 67-A, 66-C - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Appellant sought quashing of charge sheet concerning serious accusations; however, a settlement was reached between parties, deemed insufficient for quashing due to non-compoundable nature of crimes under IPC as clarified in In RE: Right to Privacy of Adolescents. (Paras 2, 6, 15)

(B) Circumstances of compromise - Compromise verified by Judicial Magistrate but held insufficient due to gravity of allegations under IPC; the court noted no evidence supporting the allegations following recantation by complainant. (Paras 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of serious offences including rape, which stemmed from a complaint filed by the second respondent who later expressed a desire to recant her statements and settle the matter. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The allegations against the appellant were regarded as virtually false; the court found appropriate grounds to quash the complaint and related proceedings based on the verified settlement. (Para 15)

Issues: Whether the allegations could be quashed based on a settlement between the parties, despite their non-compoundable nature and serious implications. (Para 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained it must exercise caution when considering compromises regarding non-compoundable offences, emphasizing the necessity of established principles concerning privacy and wrongful allegations. (Para 15)

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. application under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 2 , 3)
2. counsel submissions regarding quashing proceedings. (Para 4 , 5)
3. settlement agreement verification. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. false allegations under ipc section 376. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. exercising article 142 jurisdiction to quash complaint. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein had preferred an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), seeking quashing of the entire proceedings as well as charge sheet No.31 of 2023 and cognizance order dated 29.03.2023 in Case No.3398 of 2023 (State vs. Pawan Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.0260 of 2022 under Sections 354-C, 376, 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ("IPC" for short) and Sections 67 -A and 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("IT Act" for short) registered in Police Station Hathras Junction, District Hathras and it was pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. The High Court by its order dated 01.10.2024 dismissed the said application. However, in paragraph 6 the High Court has recorded as under:

"6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, it is evident that the applicant is an accused in the present case in which a first information report was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 04.09.2022. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet dated 25.02.2023 was submitted against the applicant for offences under Sections 354-C, 376, 506 IPC & 67-A, 66-C Information Technology Act on which the court concerned took cognizance and summoned him vide order dated 29.03.2023. Subsequently it appears that the parties entered into a compromise. An application along with affidavit of the opposite party No.2 dated 07.02.2024 was filed before the court concerned. The said affidavit of the opposite party no.2 stating that she does not want to contest the case further and wants to settle the same was sent for verification by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2024. The said compromise was verified vide order dated 27.08.2024 by the Judicial Magistrate, Hathras and a report to the said effect was sent to this court. The proceedings in the present matter relates to offence which are non-compoundable. The judgment relied by learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Kapil Gupta (supra) is of no help to him since the Apex Court has in paragraph 17 of the same clarified that it has exercised its extraordinary powers to quash the criminal proceedings. Although compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court concerned but the proceedings in the present matter are under Sections 354-C, 376, 506 IPC & 67-A, 66-C Information Technology Act which cannot be compounded in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of In RE: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2023) decided on 20.08.2024 paragraph 22, 23 & 23.1. No ground is made out."

3. It is in the above backdrop that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the first respondent-State and learned counsel for the second respondent-complainant and perused the material on record.

5. During the course of submissions learned counsel for the appellant as well as the second respondent drew our attention to the settlement agreement, the agreement letter/affidavit of the second respondent and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, all dated 27.08.2024. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to two orders of this Court arising in Crl.A.NO.4928 of 2024 ( Nitin Bhargav vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another ) and judgment in Crl.A.NO.2343 of 2023 ( Haji Iqbal @ Bala thorugh SPOA vs. State of UP and others ). In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that taking note of the aforesaid material on reco