Back
2024 Supreme(All) 93
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
Pooja Singh And Another – Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. – Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 No. 8 of 2024
Decided On : 04-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Dharmendra Kumar, Santosh Kumar Giri
Criminal proceedings may be quashed based on a compromise in private disputes involving minor offenses, especially when the parties are unwilling to prosecute each other.
Headnote:
Compromise - Criminal Proceedings - 376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C. - [376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C.] - The court quashed the criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, considering the marital relationship and the absence of serious allegations impacting society.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings arising from a charge sheet filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The parties had settled their dispute through a registered compromise deed, and the petitioner no. 1, who had filed the FIR, was unwilling to contest the case as she had married petitioner no. 2 and they were living together peacefully with a son.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had settled their dispute amicably through a registered compromise deed, and the petitioner no. 1 was unwilling to contest the criminal case. The court concluded that further proceedings would be a waste of time and may cause prejudice to the parties who were living peacefully as husband and wife.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed based on the compromise between the parties, particularly considering the marital relationship and the unwillingness of the petitioner no. 1 to contest the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in private disputes involving minor offenses and where the parties are not interested in prosecuting each other, criminal proceedings may be quashed based on a compromise. It emphasized that the purpose of criminal justice is not to compel a person to face prosecution, especially when the complainant is unwilling to contest the case.
Final Decision: The court quashed the entire proceedings of the criminal trial and directed the petitioners to register their marriage under the 'Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017' within one month.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ram Raj Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. With the consent of parties, the case is being decided finally at the admission stage.
3. By means of this petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the following relief has been prayed :
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No. 378 of 2021 arising out of charge sheet dated 3.9.2020 filed by investigating officer in Crime No. 117 of 2020 u/s 376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C. relating to Police Station -Indira Nagar, District Lucknow in re-State Versus Devendra Pratap Singh on the basis of compromise dated 29.12.2023, contained as Annexure No. -1 to the application, in the interest of justice.
Meanwhile, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Session Trial No. 378 of 2021 arising out of Crime No.-117 of 2020 under section -376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507 IPC relating to Police Station-Indira Nagar, District Lucknow pending in the court of Fast Track Court, Lucknow, in re- State Versus Devendra Pratap Singh, in the interest of justice."
4. Though the petitioners were not summoned to appear before the Court but they have appeared to convince the Court that they have settled their dispute amicably through registered compromise deed, the original copy thereof has been enclosed as Annexure no. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that having some wrong impression and confusion the petitioner no. 1 has lodged a F.I.R. on 14.3.2020 u/s 376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C. against the petitioner no. 2 and two others. However, the petitioner no. 1 married with the petitioner no. 2 on 6.12.2021 by adopting Hindu rituals and since then i.e. 6.12.2021 both are living together as husband and wife. On 27.11.2022 both became parents of one son. The parties are present in the Court with their son also.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that after lodging the F.I.R. the charge-sheet was filed, court concerned has taken cognizance, matter was committed to sessions, thereafter charges were framed and trial proceeded. The Sessions Trial number is 378 of 2021. The chief-examination of petitioner no. 1 has already taken place but she has not been cross-examined till date. On being asked from Ms. Pooja Bharti @ Pooja Singh as to whether she is willing to prosecute the petitioner no. 2 i.e. Devendra Pratap Singh and others in the sessions trial, she has specifically and categorically stated that the petitioner no. 2 is her husband, they are having one son, they are living peacefully together and she has no grudges or grievance against her husband or others against whom the allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R. At the same time the petitioner no. 2 i.e. Devendra Pratap Singh has also informed the Court that he is living with his wife Pooja Bharti @ Pooja Singh w.e.f. 6.12.2021, they are happily living, he has no grievance of any kind whatsoever against his wife i.e. Pooja Bharti @ Pooja Singh, therefore, he prayed that the criminal case pending against him may be set aside / quashed on the basis of aforesaid compromise.
6. Sri Ram Raj Singh, learned AGA has stated that though the sessions trial is in process wherein the cross-examination of complainant / petitioner no. 1 is to take place but if the complainant / informant herself is not willing to prosecute her husband i.e. petitioner no. 2 and they have entered into a compromise then any appropriate order to suffice the ends of justice may be passed.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as having regard to the statements, so recorded by the petitioners before the Court, more particularly, the statement of the petitioner no. 1 who is informant / complainant to the effect that she is not willing to contest the criminal case before the sessio
