The power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the serious impact of certain offenses on society should be considered.

JUDGMENT :

1. Vakalatnama filed by Ram Lakhan Pal, Advocate on behalf of opposite party is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of S.T. No.574/2022, arising out of Case Crime No.0007/2022, under Sections 376 & 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first information report came to be lodged against the applicant on the basis of false and fabricated facts. His further submission is that upon conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed without there being any evidence whatsoever against him. He has further submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever in support of the charge sheet neither there is any material to frame the charge against the accused nor the proceeding can fruitfully be continued against him. His further submission is that the prosecutrix is living with the applicant as wife and they have been blessed with a girl child. His further submission is that the entire prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is improbable and unbelievable. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the applicant is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, the impugned criminal proceedings be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has admitted the fact that the opposite party no.2 is living with applicant peacefully as wife and they have blessed with a girl child.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State controverts the submissions of learned counsel for applicant by submitting that though in this case there is no written compromise between the parties. His further submission is that had there been any compromise also, the same would not be impermissible as the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act are not only non-compoundable but also such offense has an adverse societal effect. To substantiate his argument he has placed reliance on the judgements passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr., LL 2021 SC 168. His further submission is that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (supra) in para no.11 has held as under:-

"11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are: (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)

"61. … the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exer