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

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Awasthi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Bajpai, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The instant application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 16.04.2015 under Section 498-A, 323, 452, 376A, 506 I.P.C. R/w Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No. 109/2014 at P.S. Gudamba, District-Lucknow, summoning order dated 12.06.2015 and the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 764 of 2018 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lucknow.

3. The trial Court recorded statement of the complainant/victim who appeared as PW1 and she has been declared to be hostile. During her cross-examination, she has stated that the applicant is her husband and she is residing as his wife for the past four years. A compromise entered into between the parties, which has been annexed with the application whereas the opposite party No.2 has stated that she is wife of the applicant, she has delivered three children out of the wedlock who are present aged about 12 years, 7 years and 5 years. She has stated that she does not want any proceedings to continue against the applicant.

4. The opposite party no.2 has filed a counter affidavit admitting the compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the prayer.

5. The applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a copy of order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the trial Court verifying the genuineness of the compromise.

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.

8. In view of the law as discussed above, the present petition is allowed and proceedings of the charge sheet dated 16.04.2015 under Section 498-A, 323, 452, 376A, 506 I.P.C. R/w Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No. 109/2014 at P.S. Gudamba, summoning order dated 12.06.2015 and the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 764 of 2018 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge- I, Lucknow are hereby quashed. District-Lucknow, . Order Date :- 3.7.2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Awasthi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Bajpai, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The instant application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 16.04.2015 under Section 498-A, 323, 452, 376A, 506 I.P.C. R/w Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No. 109/2014 at P.S. Gudamba, District-Lucknow, summoning order dated 12.06.2015 and the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 764 of 2018 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lucknow.

3. The trial Court recorded statement of the complainant/victim who appeared as PW1 and she has been declared to be hostile. During her cross-examination, she has stated that the applicant is her husband and she is residing as his wife for the past four years. A compromise entered into between the parties, which has been annexed with the application whereas the opposite party No.2 has stated that she is wife of the applicant, she has delivered three children out of the wedlock who are present aged about 12 years, 7 years and 5 years. She has stated that she does not want any proceedings to continue against the applicant.

4. The opposite party no.2 has filed a counter affidavit admitting the compromise and supporting the prayer for quashing of the prayer.

5. The applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a copy of order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the trial Court verifying the genuineness of the compromise.

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.

8. In view of the law as discussed above, the present petition is allowed and proceedings of the charge sheet dated 16.04.2015 under Section 498-A, 323, 452, 376A, 506 I.P.C. R/w Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No. 109/2014 at P.S. Gudamba, summoning order dated 12.06.2015 and the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 764 of 2018 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge- I, Lucknow are hereby quashed. District-Lucknow, . Order Date :- 3.7.2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench