The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88178 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20205 of 2017
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Baddu Alias Manoj Kumar Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath Singh,Ram Prakash Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri A.N. Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent no.1, Sri R.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 and perused the record. 2. In the instant matter, initially O.P. no.2 moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. against five accused persons including the present applicant with an allegation that they have abducted their younger daughter. Vide order dated 21.08.2014, the court below has directed to register an FIR, which was lodged on 05.09.2014 u/s 364, 354, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, final report was submitted on 23.11.2014 against which O.P. no.2 filed protest petition on 07.08.2015 and the court below vide order dated 30.09.2016 rejected the final report and further investigation was directed. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, applicants preferred Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.23507 of 2016 before this Court wherein they were granted interim protection vide order dated 15.11.2016. 3. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties. He further submitted that the applicant and victim girl, daughter of O.P. no.2, were having love affair and both of them are now major and they have solemnized marriage and are living happily together. 4. On perusal of the joint affidavit, it transpires that the parties had compromise the matter out of 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 it pending. 5. 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 parties. 6. 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 for quashing the proceeding on the basis of 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 to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and 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 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, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc." 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and consequently, chargesheet dated 09.04.2017, cognizance order dated 29.05.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.47 of 2017 (State vs. Baddu alias Manoj Kumar Chaudhary) arising out of Case Crime No.1293 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 16/17 and 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Purani Basti, District-Basti pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Ist, Basti qua the present applicant is hereby quashed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad