Ankit Singh v. State Of Up And 2 Others
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 313, 323, 376, 504, 506
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. We find that the matter has been settled between the parties however the present first information report has been lodged under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC. We have gone through the first information report carefully. The first information report clearly reflects that…
Judgment
Heard Sri R.S. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vishal Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 15.02.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 57 of 2024, under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Gauri Bazar, District Deoria.
Vide order dated 20.03.2024 the matter was referred to the mediation centre.
Perused the office report dated 19.07.2024 and the settlement agreement dated 23.06.2024 which indicates that matter has been peacefully settled between the parties and they have settled their differences on the terms mentioned in paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement dated 23.06.2024. The paragraph 6 is quoted as under:- " 6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the parties hereto:- a) That the parties have amicably resolved their dispute on the condition that the petitioner- Ankit Singh shall pay an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lakh only) to the respondent no.3 - Anshika Yadav, by way of demand drafts. b) That today i.e.23.06.2024, the petitioner- Ankit Singh has handed over two demand drafts bearing nos. 095343 & 095344 both dated 20.06.2024 of Rs.9,00,000/- + Rs.3,50,000/-= Rs.12,50,000/- (Rs. Nine Lakh + Rs. Three Lakh Fifty Thousand= Rs. Twelve Lakh Fifty Thousand only) both drawn on Bank of Baroda in favour of Anshika Yadav (respondent no.3) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. c) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 12,50,000/- (Rs. Twelve Lakh Fifty Thousand only) shall be paid by the petitioner- Ankit Singh to the respondent no.3- Anshika Yadav at time of quashing of the FIR in the present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3157 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Court. d) That it has also been agreed between the parties that if the Hon'ble Court pleases to allow the present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3157 of 2024, the Respondent No.3 will have no objection in any manner whatsoever. e) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all civil and criminal cases (if any) filed by them against each other regarding present dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned. f) That the parties will not file any fresh case against each other in respect of this matrimonial dispute. They have no claim against each other in future also. g) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse. "
It is submitted that as between the parties compromise had already taken place therefore, the impugned First Information Report dated 15.02.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 57 of 2024, under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Gauri Bazar, District Deoria is liable to be quashed.
Pursuant to the Clause 6(c) of the settlement agreement dated 23.06.2024, the petitioner has produced the demand draft No.095345 dated 04.07.2024 for sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh) and demand draft No.095346 dated 04.07.2024 for sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand) before this Court. The same are handed over to the respondent no.3, Anshika Yadav, who is present in the Court and has been identified by both the counsel. The receiving of the demand draft mentioned above is taken on record. The presence of respondent no.3, Anshik Yadav is noted on the order sheet.
We find that the matter has been settled between the parties however the present first information report has been lodged under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC. We have gone through the first information report carefully. The first information report clearly reflects that the informant and the petitioner herein were in love affair and having consensual physical relationship for about 4-5 years and even during this period she got pregnant twice; first in April and again in September, 2022 and the pregnancy was terminated whereas the first information report was lodged on February, 2024. No specific reference of any forceful termination has been made, as such we find that even otherwise offence under Sections 376 and 323 IPC are not made out coupled with the fact that compromise has already been taken. Moreover, the informant is police constable and therefore she is fully understand the law as applicable.
6. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana), J.T. 2008(9) SC 192(Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another), (2012) 10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab), (2014) 9 SCC 653 (Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand) and also (2014) 6 SCC 466 (Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab), and in view of the settlement agreement dated 23.06.2024 and also considering the fact that both the parties have been in love affair and having consensual physical relationship for more than 5 years, the First Information Report dated 15.02.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 57 of 2024, under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Gauri Bazar, District Deoria is hereby quashed.
7. The present petition is, accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 19.7.2024 A.Kr.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 313, 323, 376, 504, 506.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 19 Jul 2024. The bench was VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.