IMPORTANT POINT
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 Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Nishant Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rizwanul Haque Ansari, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rishikesh Verma, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.the applicant has sought quashing of the summoning order dated 18.08.2022 and the proceedings of Compliant Case No. 100/2018, under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. (Sushila Devi vs. Bahorilal) which is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, District Kheri, on the ground that the parties have entered into a settlement claiming for closer of the criminal proceedings instituted by the opposite party no. 2 against him.

3. The opposite party no. 2 had filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 23.02.2016 alleging that when she had gone to attend call of nature at about 6:00 am on 09.02.2016 towards in a grave situated towards a north of a village, the applicant assaulted her with a butt of a pistol and raped her after threatening her. When she got herself freed and raised a hue and cry, Raja Ram and Lalla etc. reached on the spot and thereafter the applicant ran away. On the aforesaid application, an F.I.R. No. 160 of 2022 was registered on 8.03.2022.

4. During investigation, the investigating officer has recorded statements of several independent persons, all of whom have stated that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are false and no such incident had taken place. The complainant's husband stated that he does not remember the date of the incident but it took place around the festival of Khichdi (which normally falls around 15th January). He stated that the complainant had told her about some altercation only.

5. Lalla Ram, regarding whom the informant had stated in the F.I.R. that he had reached on the spot, stated that when he had reached the spot, the complainant was alone there. She has suffered some injury but he does not know as to how that injury was caused. He did not state anything further and he merely stated that he would not give any false evidence against any person. The complainant stated in her statement that she has not raised any hue and cry at the spot of occurrence and she declined to get herself examined medically as a long time has elapsed since the incident.

6. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted a Final Report on 03.07.2016. The opposite party no. 2 filed a protest on 30.03.2018, which was allowed and the protest application was registered as a complaint.

7. In her statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. the complainant stated that the applicant had caught hold of her and had shut her mouth but she did not state that the applicant had assaulted her with a butt of a pistol, which had been alleged by her earlier. She stated that she did not remember as to who had reached on the spot but her husband had told afterwards that he and his younger brother Lalla Ram had brought her home and the applicant had escaped before anybody could reach there. This statement of the complainant was at material variance with her earlier version.

8. In his statement recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. the complainant's husband, Rajaram supported the complainant's allegations, although before the investigating officer, he had stated that he was present at the home at the time of the incident and he did not even remember the date of the incident.

9. Subsequently, on 20.03.2023 the opposite party no. 2 has entered into a compromise with the applicant wherein she stated that she had levelled the allegations against the applicant because of ill advice of some other persons. The parties live in the same village and they have reconciled their differences and no dispute remains between them. She categorically stated that she wants closure of the proceedings initiated by her. The compromise has been signed in presence of some witnesses and it has been attested by a notary public.

10. The applica