In the case of Bahori Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Another

Prakash @Bachha', arising out of Case Crime No. 0155/2024, under sections 376-D I.P.C., registered at Police Station - Jaidpur, District Barabanki, pending in the Court of learned Additional District / FTC Court No. 36, Barabanki, in the light of compromise dated 19.04.2025, entered into between the parties.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 08.02.2024 alleging that while the opposite party No. 2 had gone to attend the call of nature in a filed on 0:9 pm on 04.05.2024, the applicant No. 1 raped her while the applicant No. 2 was keeping watch. In her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the opposite party No. 2 reiterated the FIR version but she further stated that she wants to marry the applicant No. 2. The medico legal examination report of the opposite party No.2 does not mention any mark of injury or sign of use of force. In her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the opposite party No. 2 the FIR version but she stated that she wants to marry the applicant No. 1.

4. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted on

08.05.2024 and the Trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence. The parties have arrived at a settlement dated

0904.2025 wherein the opposite party No. 2 has stated that she had lodged the FIR upon being misled by some persons whereas the applicants have not committed any offence and she does not want any proceedings to continue against the applicants. The opposite party No. 2 has filed a short counter affidavit accepting the fact of compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings against the applicants.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the case of Bahori Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Another 2024 SCC OnLine All 4596, this Court has examined the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1186, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531, Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030 and has culled out the following principles from the aforesaid judgments: "27. ....... the inherent powers of the High Courts recognized by Section 482 Cr. P.C. are wide and can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings, but the power has to be exercised judiciously and consciously. The High Courts can exercise their jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law is clearly made out. Such powers ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind the nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society; the seriousness of the injury,if any, the voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim, the conduct of the accused persons and the other relevant considerations. Though the Courts should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there is sufficient evidence which may lead to proving the charges. The High Court can quash the proceedings even in cases where the parties have entered into a settlement after conviction for a heinous offence carrying a maximum punishment for life. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast rule restricting the powers of the High Court to do substantial justice, as a restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may lead to grave injustice."

7. In the case of K. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, an FIR under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 was registered alleging that the appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, which amounted to committing rape. He was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence. In appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the allegation against the appellant was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, whereas he had in fact married the prosecutrix and they had two children and they were being taken care of by the appellant and she was leading a happy married life. The prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. After taking into consideration these facts, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant in view of the subsequent events by observing that "This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix." However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also expressed that the order shall not be treated as a precedent.

6. Considering the fact that in the present case although the opposite party No. 2 has levelled allegation of commission of rape, the allegation is not supported by the findings of the medico legal examination report and even in both her statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and Section 164 CrPC, while levelling the allegation of commission of rape, the opposite party No. 2 has expressed desire to marry with the applicant No. 1, I am of the view that it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

8. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and proceedings of S.C. No. 1080/2024, 'State Vs Ravi Prakash @Bachha', arising out of Case Crime No. 0155/2024, under sections 376-D I.P.C., registered at Police Station - Jaidpur, District Barabanki, are quashed. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prakash @Bachha', arising out of Case Crime No. 0155/2024, under sections 376-D I.P.C., registered at Police Station - Jaidpur, District Barabanki, pending in the Court of learned Additional District / FTC Court No. 36, Barabanki, in the light of compromise dated 19.04.2025, entered into between the parties.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 08.02.2024 alleging that while the opposite party No. 2 had gone to attend the call of nature in a filed on 0:9 pm on 04.05.2024, the applicant No. 1 raped her while the applicant No. 2 was keeping watch. In her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the opposite party No. 2 reiterated the FIR version but she further stated that she wants to marry the applicant No. 2. The medico legal examination report of the opposite party No.2 does not mention any mark of injury or sign of use of force. In her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the opposite party No. 2 the FIR version but she stated that she wants to marry the applicant No. 1.

4. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted on

08.05.2024 and the Trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence. The parties have arrived at a settlement dated

0904.2025 wherein the opposite party No. 2 has stated that she had lodged the FIR upon being misled by some persons whereas the applicants have not committed any offence and she does not want any proceedings to continue against the applicants. The opposite party No. 2 has filed a short counter affidavit accepting the fact of compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings against the applicants.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the case of Bahori Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Another 2024 SCC OnLine All 4596, this Court has examined the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1186, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531, Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635 and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030 and has culled out the following principles from the aforesaid judgments: "27. ....... the inherent powers of the High Courts recognized by Section 482 Cr. P.C. are wide and can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings, but the power has to be exercised judiciously and consciously. The High Courts can exercise their jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law is clearly made out. Such powers ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind the nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society; the seriousness of the injury,if any, the voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim, the conduct of the accused persons and the other relevant considerations. Though the Courts should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there is sufficient evidence which may lead to proving the charges. The High Court can quash the proceedings even in cases where the parties have entered into a settlement after conviction for a heinous offence carrying a maximum punishment for life. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast rule restricting the powers of the High Court to do substantial justice, as a restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may lead to grave injustice."

7. In the case of K. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, an FIR under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 was registered alleging that the appellant who is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, which amounted to committing rape. He was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence. In appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the allegation against the appellant was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, whereas he had in fact married the prosecutrix and they had two children and they were being taken care of by the appellant and she was leading a happy married life. The prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. After taking into consideration these facts, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant in view of the subsequent events by observing that "This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix." However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also expressed that the order shall not be treated as a precedent.

6. Considering the fact that in the present case although the opposite party No. 2 has levelled allegation of commission of rape, the allegation is not supported by the findings of the medico legal examination report and even in both her statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and Section 164 CrPC, while levelling the allegation of commission of rape, the opposite party No. 2 has expressed desire to marry with the applicant No. 1, I am of the view that it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

8. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and proceedings of S.C. No. 1080/2024, 'State Vs Ravi Prakash @Bachha', arising out of Case Crime No. 0155/2024, under sections 376-D I.P.C., registered at Police Station - Jaidpur, District Barabanki, are quashed. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench