High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Babu Lal Ram, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Ms. Vipasha Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Jitendra Singh Yadav, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant- Ankit Yadav Alias Ankit, who is a named as well as charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS. with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application under section 528 BNSS and quash the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No.814 of 2020 (State Vs. Ankit Yadav), arising out of case crime No.125 of 2020 under section 354, 376,504,506 IPC and 3 (2) (5), 3 (2) 5A Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, police station Asothar, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Fatehpur and this Hon'ble court be pleased to quash the cognizance order dated 17.11.2020 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Fatehpur in the above mentioned case and this Hon'ble court also be pleased quash the charge sheet dated 02.11.2020 submitted by I.O. in case crime No.125 of 2020 under section 354, 376,504,506 IPC and 3 (2) (5), 3(2)5A Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, police station Asothar, District Fatehpur. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Special Session Trial No.814 of 2020 (State Vs. Ankit Yadav) arising out of case crime No.125 of 2020 under section 354, 376,504,506 IPC and 3 (2) (5), 3(2)5A Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, police station Asothar, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Fatehpur and this Hon'ble court be pleased to quash the cognizance order dated 17.11.2020 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Fatehpur in the above mentioned case and this Hon'ble court also be pleased quash the charge sheet dated 02.11.2020 submitted by 1.0. in case crime No.125 of 2020 under section 354, 376,504,506 IPC and 3 (2) (5), 3(2)5A Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, police station Asothar, District Fatehpur, during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble court, and/or pass other such and further order and direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that during pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the terms of compromise were reduced to writing by way of a compromise deed dated 30.11.2023, copy of which has been brought on record as annexure-11 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. On the basis of aforesaid compromise accused applicant approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.24269 of 2024 (Ankit Yadav @ Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and Another) which was dismissed with liberty to file fresh vide order dated 07.01.2025. For ready reference, the order dated 07.01.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "1. Heard Mr. Babu Lal Ram, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A..G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party- 2.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by charge sheeted accused/applicant-Ankit Yadav @ Ankit challenging the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 17.11.2020 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur in Special Sessions Trial No. 814 of 2020 (State Vs. Ankit Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 125 of 2020 under Sections 354, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (2) 5, 3 (2) 5A SC/ST Act, Police Station-Ashothar, District-Fatehpur as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned Special Sessions Trial now pending in the Court of Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Fatehpur.

4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that during the pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute out side the court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between applicants and victim, a compromise deed was drawn. Subsequently, the terms of compromise was reduced in writing by way of a compromise deed dated 30.11.2023.

5. At this juncture, court raised a pointed query as to whether the said compromise has been filed before court below or not, the learned counsel for applicants fairly submits that the said compromise has not yet been filed before court below.

6. In view of above, this application is misconceived at this stage and is therefore liable to be dismissed at this stage with liberty to applicant to file a fresh application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the compromise entered into by the parties has been filed before court below. "

5. Subsequently the said compromise was filed before Court below as is evident from the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by Court below, copy of which is on record at page 87 of the paper book.

6. Learned counsel for applicant submit that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial in above mentioned Special Sessions Trial. However in view of the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case as have now emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained any further. As such, present application is liable to be allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against applicant are liable to be quashed.

7. It is then contended by the earned counsel for applicant that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against state/society. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties no useful purpose shall now be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant as the chances of conviction of applicant are now not only remote but also bleak in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the Courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the impugned criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court. He, therefore contends that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

8. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2022) 15 SCC 44, copy of which has been appended as Annexure-13 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.

9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. He submits that applicant is also being prosecuted for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. As such, offence complained of against accused applicant is not only illegal but also immoral. In fact it is heinous. Applicant is guilty of dislodging the modesty of the prosecutrix deliberately and forcibly. As such, the criminality alleged to have been committed by applicant is not private in nature but a crime against society. Learned A.G.A. further contends that in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR Online 2019 SC 1716, there can be no compromise in matters relating to rape and sexual assault. In view of above the compromise if any, entered into by the parties is misconceived. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Gupta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2022) 15 SCC 44 does not lay down any ratio but is a judgment in the facts and circumstances of that case. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

10. Ms. Vipasha Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Jitendra Singh Yadav, the learned counsel representing first informant- opposite party-2 however does not oppose the present application. She contends that she has received instructions not to oppose the present application. She further contends that it is an admitted fact that parties have entered into a compromise. She, therefore, submits that she cannot have any objection in case, the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforementioned compromise entered into by the parties.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that present application has been filed primarily on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise. Since applicant is also facing trial under Section 376 IPC, therefore, injunction issued by the Apex Court in the case of Rampal (Supra) is clearly attracted. As such, the compromise entered into by the parties is wholly misconceived as no benefit can be derived by the applicant on the basis of same. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

12. In view of above, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

13. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Imtiyaz IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Babu Lal Ram, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Ms. Vipasha Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Jitendra Singh Yadav, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant- Ankit Yadav Alias Ankit, who is a named as well as charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS. with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application under section 528 BNSS and quash the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No.814 of 2020 (State Vs. Ankit Yadav), arising out of case crime No.125 of 2020 under section 354, 376,504,506 IPC and 3 (2) (5), 3 (2) 5A Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, police station Asothar, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Fatehpur and this Hon'ble court be pleased to quash the cognizance order dated 17.11.2020 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Fatehpur in the above mentioned case and this Hon'ble court also be pleased quash the charge sheet dated 02.11.2020 submitted by I.O. in case crime No.125 of 2020 under section 354, 376,504,506 IPC and 3 (2) (5), 3(2)5A Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, police station Asothar, District Fatehpur. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Special Session Trial No.814 of 2020 (State Vs. Ankit Yadav) arising out of case crime No.125 of 2020 under section 354, 376,504,506 IPC and 3 (2) (5), 3(2)5A Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, police station Asothar, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Fatehpur and this Hon'ble court be pleased to quash the cognizance order dated 17.11.2020 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Fatehpur in the above mentioned case and this Hon'ble court also be pleased quash the charge sheet dated 02.11.2020 submitted by 1.0. in case crime No.125 of 2020 under section 354, 376,504,506 IPC and 3 (2) (5), 3(2)5A Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, police station Asothar, District Fatehpur, during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble court, and/or pass other such and further order and direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that during pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the terms of compromise were reduced to writing by way of a compromise deed dated 30.11.2023, copy of which has been brought on record as annexure-11 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. On the basis of aforesaid compromise accused applicant approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.24269 of 2024 (Ankit Yadav @ Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and Another) which was dismissed with liberty to file fresh vide order dated 07.01.2025. For ready reference, the order dated 07.01.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "1. Heard Mr. Babu Lal Ram, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A..G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party- 2.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by charge sheeted accused/applicant-Ankit Yadav @ Ankit challenging the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 17.11.2020 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur in Special Sessions Trial No. 814 of 2020 (State Vs. Ankit Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 125 of 2020 under Sections 354, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (2) 5, 3 (2) 5A SC/ST Act, Police Station-Ashothar, District-Fatehpur as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned Special Sessions Trial now pending in the Court of Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Fatehpur.

4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that during the pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute out side the court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between applicants and victim, a compromise deed was drawn. Subsequently, the terms of compromise was reduced in writing by way of a compromise deed dated 30.11.2023.

5. At this juncture, court raised a pointed query as to whether the said compromise has been filed before court below or not, the learned counsel for applicants fairly submits that the said compromise has not yet been filed before court below.

6. In view of above, this application is misconceived at this stage and is therefore liable to be dismissed at this stage with liberty to applicant to file a fresh application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the compromise entered into by the parties has been filed before court below. "

5. Subsequently the said compromise was filed before Court below as is evident from the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by Court below, copy of which is on record at page 87 of the paper book.

6. Learned counsel for applicant submit that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial in above mentioned Special Sessions Trial. However in view of the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case as have now emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained any further. As such, present application is liable to be allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against applicant are liable to be quashed.

7. It is then contended by the earned counsel for applicant that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against state/society. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties no useful purpose shall now be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant as the chances of conviction of applicant are now not only remote but also bleak in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the Courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the impugned criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court. He, therefore contends that present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

8. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2022) 15 SCC 44, copy of which has been appended as Annexure-13 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.

9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. He submits that applicant is also being prosecuted for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. As such, offence complained of against accused applicant is not only illegal but also immoral. In fact it is heinous. Applicant is guilty of dislodging the modesty of the prosecutrix deliberately and forcibly. As such, the criminality alleged to have been committed by applicant is not private in nature but a crime against society. Learned A.G.A. further contends that in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR Online 2019 SC 1716, there can be no compromise in matters relating to rape and sexual assault. In view of above the compromise if any, entered into by the parties is misconceived. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Gupta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2022) 15 SCC 44 does not lay down any ratio but is a judgment in the facts and circumstances of that case. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

10. Ms. Vipasha Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Jitendra Singh Yadav, the learned counsel representing first informant- opposite party-2 however does not oppose the present application. She contends that she has received instructions not to oppose the present application. She further contends that it is an admitted fact that parties have entered into a compromise. She, therefore, submits that she cannot have any objection in case, the present application is decided by this Court taking into consideration the aforementioned compromise entered into by the parties.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that present application has been filed primarily on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise. Since applicant is also facing trial under Section 376 IPC, therefore, injunction issued by the Apex Court in the case of Rampal (Supra) is clearly attracted. As such, the compromise entered into by the parties is wholly misconceived as no benefit can be derived by the applicant on the basis of same. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

12. In view of above, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

13. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Imtiyaz IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad