Athahar Guddu v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
1. Heard Sri Manjeet Kumar, learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent no.1, alongwith Mohd. Farid, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, and perused the record. 2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no. 81/2023, dated 18.04.2023, filed in Sessions Trial No. 893 of 2023 - State Vs. Athar @ Guddu, arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Mugalpura, District - Moradabad, pending in the Court of Fast Track Court, Court No. III, Moradabad. 3. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that during trial the prosecutrix has been examined as PW-1, where she has allegations which were levelled in the first information report and which were also borne out from the statements recorded during the investigation. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicant, wherein it has been stated that the parties have turned hostile and denied all 2 A482 No. 5136 of 2024 arrived at settlement/compromise and the prosecutrix has stated that she does not want to pursue the litigation against the accused-applicant. 4. From the perusal of allegations levelled in the first information report, it is noticed that the same pertain to the applicant being accused of making illicit physical relations with the prosecutrix after promise to marry her. Subsequently, the accused-applicant has refused to marry and accordingly first information report has been lodged. 5. From the aforesaid facts it is noticed that entire prosecution rests on the shoulder of the testimony of the prosecutrix, as all the allegations are in her personal knowledge. It is noticed that once the matter has been settled between the parties and compromise has been entered, then no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the prosecution pending. Apart from the above, during trial the prosecutrix has turned hostile and denied all the allegations levelled in the first information report and accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that there are no chances of the prosecution succeeding in the said case, in the aforesaid circumstances. 6. Alongwith the supplementary affidavit a certified copy of the compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties as well as certified copy of the order dated 03.09.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Moradabad has been annexed, wherein he has verified the fact that parties have entered into compromise. On perusal of the supplementary affidavit, compromised/settled the matter out side the Court and O.P. no.2 does not want to pursue the matter. Since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicant, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present application pending. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection if the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings are quashed in terms of the compromise between the transpires parties 3 A482 No. 5136 of 2024 exercised overwhelmingly the criminal proceedings parties. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles the basis of the proceeding on for quashing settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code the non- to quash compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code having predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in 4 A482 No. 5136 of 2024 exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused was the accused, namely, whether absconding and why he was absconding, how he had into a managed with compromise etc." 9. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, the complainant to enter 5 A482 No. 5136 of 2024 (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, 10. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the trial Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 893 of 2023 - State Vs. Athar @ Guddu, arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Mugalpura, District - Moradabad, pending in the Court of Fast Track Court, Court No. III, Moradabad, qua the present applicant is hereby quashed. September 15, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Manjeet Kumar, learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent no.1, alongwith Mohd. Farid, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, and perused the record. 2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no. 81/2023, dated 18.04.2023, filed in Sessions Trial No. 893 of 2023 - State Vs. Athar @ Guddu, arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Mugalpura, District - Moradabad, pending in the Court of Fast Track Court, Court No. III, Moradabad. 3. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that during trial the prosecutrix has been examined as PW-1, where she has allegations which were levelled in the first information report and which were also borne out from the statements recorded during the investigation. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicant, wherein it has been stated that the parties have turned hostile and denied all 2 A482 No. 5136 of 2024 arrived at settlement/compromise and the prosecutrix has stated that she does not want to pursue the litigation against the accused-applicant. 4. From the perusal of allegations levelled in the first information report, it is noticed that the same pertain to the applicant being accused of making illicit physical relations with the prosecutrix after promise to marry her. Subsequently, the accused-applicant has refused to marry and accordingly first information report has been lodged. 5. From the aforesaid facts it is noticed that entire prosecution rests on the shoulder of the testimony of the prosecutrix, as all the allegations are in her personal knowledge. It is noticed that once the matter has been settled between the parties and compromise has been entered, then no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the prosecution pending. Apart from the above, during trial the prosecutrix has turned hostile and denied all the allegations levelled in the first information report and accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that there are no chances of the prosecution succeeding in the said case, in the aforesaid circumstances. 6. Alongwith the supplementary affidavit a certified copy of the compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties as well as certified copy of the order dated 03.09.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Moradabad has been annexed, wherein he has verified the fact that parties have entered into compromise. On perusal of the supplementary affidavit, compromised/settled the matter out side the Court and O.P. no.2 does not want to pursue the matter. Since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicant, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present application pending. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection if the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings are quashed in terms of the compromise between the transpires parties 3 A482 No. 5136 of 2024 exercised overwhelmingly the criminal proceedings parties. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles the basis of the proceeding on for quashing settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code the non- to quash compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code having predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in 4 A482 No. 5136 of 2024 exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused was the accused, namely, whether absconding and why he was absconding, how he had into a managed with compromise etc." 9. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, the complainant to enter 5 A482 No. 5136 of 2024 (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, 10. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the trial Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 893 of 2023 - State Vs. Athar @ Guddu, arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Mugalpura, District - Moradabad, pending in the Court of Fast Track Court, Court No. III, Moradabad, qua the present applicant is hereby quashed. September 15, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad