Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Mohit Soni – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/S 482 No.31175 of 2017
Decided on : 05-10-2023
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of proceedings in non-compoundable cases involving heinous crimes like rape - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure saves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The power to quash the criminal proceedings u/S 482 Cr.P.C., is attracted even when the offences are non-compoundable. Though in the case involving heinous and serious offences, normally the inherent powers ought not to have been exercised on the basis of compromise between the parties, there is no absolute bar that each and every case where heinous crimes are alleged can never be quashed. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and while exercising such powers, the ultimate object is to see whether by exercising such powers and quashing the criminal proceedings, whether the ends of justice will be secured. If on the facts of the case, the Court is satisfied that prima facie the offence alleged which is of heinous and serious in nature is not constituted on the facts of the case and parties have settled their disputes through compromise and further in view of such compromise, there are remote and bleak possibilities of conviction of the accused persons and the continuation of such criminal proceedings would cause oppression and harassment, not only to the accused but the victim as well, such proceedings can be quashed in exercise of power u/S 482 of Cr.P.C., on the basis of settlement between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought quashing of the Charge Sheet No. 114/17 dated 20.06.2017 in Case No. 3056/IX of 2017 (State vs. Mohit Soni), arising out of Case Crime No. 201 of 2017 u/S 493, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Rajapur, District-Chitrakoot, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot. The opposite party no.2 had filed a joint affidavit in the form of compromise before the learned Trial Court, stating that she does not wish to prosecute her case against the applicant as she has already married to someone else and is settled in her life. The applicant and opposite party no.2 were in a physical relationship for more than six years, and due to a dispute, the opposite party no.2 lodged the prosecution against the applicant.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that prima facie no offence u/S 376 or 493 I.P.C., is made out against the applicant. The victim/opposite party no.2 has already married to someone else and has moved ahead in life, and the pendency of the instant case will cause further harassment to her. The Court exercised the powers u/S 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the instant proceedings to secure the ends of justice not only to the applicant but also to save the opposite party no.2 from further harassment.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that there was no prima facie case u/S 376 or 493 against the applicant, and the parties had entered into a compromise. The Court exercised the powers u/S 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the instant proceedings to secure the ends of justice not only to the applicant but also to save the opposite party no.2 from further harassment.
Final Decision: The Charge Sheet No. 114/17 dated 20.06.2017 and entire proceedings in Case No. 3056/IX of 2017 (State vs. Mohit Soni), arising out of Case Crime No. 201 of 2017 u/S 493, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Rajapur, District-Chitrakoot, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot, are hereby quashed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Aakash Kishan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri C.P. Awasthi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shashi Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Prem Prakash Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the Charge Sheet No. 114/17 dated 20.06.2017 in Case No. 3056/IX of 2017 (State vs. Mohit Soni), arising out of Case Crime No. 201 of 2017 u/S 493, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Rajapur, District-Chitrakoot, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case, after the pleadings were exchanged, the opposite party no.2 has filed a joint affidavit in the form of compromise before the learned Trial Court, which has been taken on record by the learned Trial Court and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the said fact. In the said compromise, the opposite party no.2 has stated that she does not wish to prosecute her case against the applicant herein as she has already married to someone else and is settled in her life and the instant prosecution would cause further harassment to her. In addition to the same, learned counsel for the applicant further submits from the plain allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicant and opposite party no.2 were in physical relationship or rather were in live-in relationship with each other for more than six years and due to some dispute later on between the parties, when the applicant herein could not marry the opposite party no.2, the instant prosecution has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 herein against the applicant herein.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 15.09.2023 in Application u/S 482 No. 5419 of 2021 (Jiyaullah vs. State of U.P. and Another), wherein it has been held that where the consensual physical relationship between the parties was a longstanding relationship with the consent of their parents, then, no offence u/S 376 of I.P.C. shall be made out.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2022 (Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.) dated 10.08.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the complainant herself is not supporting the prosecution case and has applied for withdrawing the prosecution of the accused persons, then, it will end nothing else but an acquittal, therefore, it will be futile to keep the prosecution pending in the courts, which are already humongously overburdened.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the fact of compromise between the parties. It is further stated by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.2 has already married to someone else and is living happily, therefore, the pendency of the criminal case will be further harassment to the new matrimonial life of the opposite party no.2. In view thereof, she wants the instant proceedings to be quashed.
7. In view of the compromise between the parties and the nature of relationship between the parties, learned counsel for the State do not object to quashing of the instant proceedings on the basis of the compromise between the parties.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully perused the records of the case and on perusal of the records, the following questions arises for determination of this Court:
II) Whether if all the allegations as alleged by the opposite party no.2 in the F.I.R. and in her statements u/S 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., and believed to be true on its face value, wheth
The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings even in cases where the offences are non-compoundable, if the C....
High Court quashed abetment proceedings on victim-husband compromise after main rapist accused died, as conviction remote, parties harmonious, invoking Section 482 CrPC sparingly for non-compoundable....
The court emphasized the careful exercise of the power to quash criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving heinous and serious offences, and highlighted the wide inherent powers of the High ....
Point of law: Section 320 of Cr. P.C does not limit or control exercise of powers vested in Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C
Point of law: Section 320 of Cr. P.C does not limit or control exercise of powers vested in Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Dealing With a Plea That Dispute Has Been Settled - In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the quashing of criminal proceedings based on compromise between the parties should be considered in light of the nature and gravity of the of....
The court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on the settlement between the parties, to secure the ends of just....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
