High Court · 2025

1. Sri Rajesh Kumar Kashyap, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the victim/opposite party no. 2.

3. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief: "For the facts, reasons and circumstances narrated in the accompanying writ petition duly supported by an affidavit, it is humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet No. 01/2024 dated 23.04.2024 filed in F.I.R. No. 0765/2023, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Thakurganj, District- Lucknow West (Commissionerate, Lucknow) on the basis of compromise/settlement agreement between both the parties contained as Annexure No. 2 and set-aside the summoning order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow contained as Annexure No. 3 in the interest of justice."

4. It is stated that F.I.R. No. 0765/2023, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Thakurganj, District- Lucknow, was lodged by the mother of victim/informant. According to this F.I.R., the incident took place on 06.11.2023 at about 9.00 hours. The trial court based upon the charge-sheet no. 1 of 2024, after framing of charges under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, proceeded in the matter against the applicant/minor, who at present is aged about 17 years.

5. It is further stated that on 17.12.2024, the opposite party no.2/informant/P.W.1 (mother of victim) was declared hostile before the trial court. According to her statement, the incident, as alleged in the FIR, was not occurred, as the victim/minor at relevant time was at the house of her friend and was not present at the place of crime and the FIR was lodged on the basis of information received by the opposite party no.2. These facts are evident from the copy of the statement annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the present application.

6. It is further stated that based upon the aforesaid facts, particularly the statement of informant/P.W.1 recorded on 17.12.2024, this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 11869 of 2024 (Aman Kumar Verus State of U.P. & Others), directed the parties to appear before the concerned court and get the compromise verified, which has been verified as would appear from the order dated 06.01.2025 of Juvenile Justice Board, Mohan Road, Lucknow, annexed at page no. 23 to 25.

7. It is further stated that before the trial court, according to the charge-sheet, the prosecution has to examine total 13 witnesses and accordingly the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak and the pendency of the case in issue before the trial court is affecting the studies of the applicant and also his future.

8. It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid including the statement of informant/P.W.1, according to whom, the victim in fact was at the house of her friend and not at the place of crime, the proceedings in issue liable to be quashed.

9. The aforesaid has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2.

10. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also present age of the victim, this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court in view of the aforesaid as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the future prospects of the applicant would be affected as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 0765/2023, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

11. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

12. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Jyoti/- JYOTI RAJWANI JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Sri Rajesh Kumar Kashyap, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the victim/opposite party no. 2.

3. Instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief: "For the facts, reasons and circumstances narrated in the accompanying writ petition duly supported by an affidavit, it is humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet No. 01/2024 dated 23.04.2024 filed in F.I.R. No. 0765/2023, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Thakurganj, District- Lucknow West (Commissionerate, Lucknow) on the basis of compromise/settlement agreement between both the parties contained as Annexure No. 2 and set-aside the summoning order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow contained as Annexure No. 3 in the interest of justice."

4. It is stated that F.I.R. No. 0765/2023, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Thakurganj, District- Lucknow, was lodged by the mother of victim/informant. According to this F.I.R., the incident took place on 06.11.2023 at about 9.00 hours. The trial court based upon the charge-sheet no. 1 of 2024, after framing of charges under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, proceeded in the matter against the applicant/minor, who at present is aged about 17 years.

5. It is further stated that on 17.12.2024, the opposite party no.2/informant/P.W.1 (mother of victim) was declared hostile before the trial court. According to her statement, the incident, as alleged in the FIR, was not occurred, as the victim/minor at relevant time was at the house of her friend and was not present at the place of crime and the FIR was lodged on the basis of information received by the opposite party no.2. These facts are evident from the copy of the statement annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the present application.

6. It is further stated that based upon the aforesaid facts, particularly the statement of informant/P.W.1 recorded on 17.12.2024, this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 11869 of 2024 (Aman Kumar Verus State of U.P. & Others), directed the parties to appear before the concerned court and get the compromise verified, which has been verified as would appear from the order dated 06.01.2025 of Juvenile Justice Board, Mohan Road, Lucknow, annexed at page no. 23 to 25.

7. It is further stated that before the trial court, according to the charge-sheet, the prosecution has to examine total 13 witnesses and accordingly the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak and the pendency of the case in issue before the trial court is affecting the studies of the applicant and also his future.

8. It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid including the statement of informant/P.W.1, according to whom, the victim in fact was at the house of her friend and not at the place of crime, the proceedings in issue liable to be quashed.

9. The aforesaid has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2.

10. Upon consideration of the aforesaid as also present age of the victim, this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required as no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court in view of the aforesaid as also that if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the future prospects of the applicant would be affected as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, this Court is of the view that entire criminal criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 0765/2023, quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed.

11. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

12. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Jyoti/- JYOTI RAJWANI JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench