High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25620 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19056 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajan Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Prakash Mishra,G.A.,Mahesh Prasad Pandey Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. 1. Sri Kartikeya Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Chandra Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and
Legal Reasoning
Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, the present application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed. 11. The entire proceedings of Case No. 600 of 2024, (State Vs. Rajan Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 84 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Kuthaund, District Jalaun at Orai, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 9.4.2024, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, is hereby quashed. 12. The parties may file the certified copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. 13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 A.P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5
Arguments
Sri Tej Bhan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 600 of 2024 (State vs. Rajan Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 84 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C., P.S. Kuthaund, District Jalaun, as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 9.4.2024, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that impugned First Information Report dated 29.4.2023 has been lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations with ulterior motive and only to harass the applicant. It is further submitted that both the parties submitted that parties settled their dispute arising out of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C. on the basis of compromise dated 16.05.2024 which is annexed as Annexure no. 9 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that applicant is brother-in-law (jeeja) of the victim. It is further submitted that statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has not been recorded during the course of investigation or thereafter. There is 1 of 5 no pre-summoning evidence to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C. against the applicant. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have not disputed the factual position of law and argued that as the applicant has already arrived at amicable settlement on 16.05.2024, therefore, opposite party no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case any more against the applicant. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 29.4.2023 has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that applicant and his wife enticed away daughter of opposite party no. 2 who was aged about 17 years, with intention to marry her. It is further submitted that as per pre-summoning evidence as well as evidence recorded before the trial court, there is no allegations to constitute the essential ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and kidnapping defined under Section 361 of I.P.C. The aforesaid sections of I.P.C. are reproduced herein below: “361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.—Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. Explanation.— The words “lawful guardian” in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person. (Exception)— This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose. "363. Punishment for kidnapping.—Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be 2 of 5 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid." 6. As per pre-summoning evidence as recorded the statement of victim by the Investigating Officer as well as learned Magistrate, there is no allegations to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C. 7. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed that: (SCC p.340, para 58) "58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.." 8. Where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. [Vide: Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692]. 9. In Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur & Others v. State of Gujarat & another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, after referring the various precedents on the subject, summarized the broad principles relating to the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code as under; (SCC, p. 653, para 16) "16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is 3 of 5 not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent poser of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family or the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal Cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would case oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offence involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 4 of 5 10.