The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, especially in cases where the allegations could not be established and the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought quashing of the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No.39 of 2019: Kanchan Devi Vs. Sachin Singh, arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 2018, under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Sammanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise.

3. The opposite party no.2 had filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 13.04.2018 alleging that the applicant is a Police Constable and he came to the complainant’s house on 01.04.2017 at about 11.00 a.m. and raped her and thereafter he repetitively raped her on various occasions. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a final report dated 30.07.2018 stating that a Case Crime No.82 of 2016, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A I.P.C. was lodged in Police Station Sammanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. A police team had gone to arrest the accused persons and recover the stolen vehicle, whereupon some accused persons had resisted them in performance of their official duties. The Investigating Officer had lodged an F.I.R. No.37 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 353, 332, 336 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 (I) (x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complainant works at the brick kiln of one of the accused persons and she had filed the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on false allegations under his pressure. The incident was not supported by any independent witness.

4. The opposite party no.2 filed a protest petition against the final report, which was accepted by means of an order dated 13.03.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Ambedkar Nagar and it was registered as a complaint. After recording of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicant was summoned for trial for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by means of order dated 23.08.2022.

5. The applicant has sought quashing of the summoning order and the proceedings of the criminal case on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise on 14.10.2023. The original compromise is annexed with the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein the opposite party no.2 stated that she had lodged the F.I.R. due to some misunderstanding, no party was guilty in the matter and both the parties had agreed to get the proceedings quashed by the competent court. It is categorically stated in the compromise that the parties are major and the decision was taken without any fear or coercion. The compromise has been verified before a Notary Public and it has also been signed by the learned counsel for parties.

6. The opposite party no.2 has filed a counter affidavit accepting the factum of compromise and supporting the application for quashing of the proceedings.

7. Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the application and he has submitted that the present case involves allegation of commission of rape which is a heinous offence and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat and others: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 the proceedings of such a case cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

8. In Daxaben (supra) an F.I.R. was lodged under Section 306 I.P.C. by a cousin and an employee of the deceased. The complainant an