Mangal Dev v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another

counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. Applicant-Mangal Dev has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 9.5.2024 bearing charge-sheet No.2 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2024 under Section 376(2)(n), 344 IPC, Police Station-Laliya, District-Balrampur as well as summoning order dated 18.5.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur in Case No.531 of 2024 (State vs. Mangal Dev) including entire proceeding of the case.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Case Crime No.59 of 2024 has been lodged on the complaint of Smt.Ramawati against (i) Mangal Dev, (ii) Motilal, (iii) Radhey Shyam and (iv) Tulsi Ram under Section 376, 344 and 392 IPC. After investigation, no offence under Section 392 IPC was found against them. All are exonerated from the charges under Section 392 IPC. The only offence was found against accused applicant Mangal Dev Yadav s/o Motilal under Section 376 (2) (n), 344 IPC. The charge- sheet has been filed against the applicant only.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 have jointly submitted before this Court 2 A482 No. 6633 of 2025 that the parties had entered into a compromise. The complainant-opposite party No.2/first informant does not want to further pursue the prosecution against the sole applicant.

5. This Court has passed the order dated 11.9.2025, which reads as under: "Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Abdul Samad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 jointly submit that the victim and the applicant have got married and are residing together. The parties have arrived at a compromise and the compromise has been reduced to writing. The parties do not wish to continue with the prosecution of the criminal case in view of the aforesaid compromise. The parties shall appear before the trial court and submit the compromise before the learned trial court for verification within a period of two weeks. The learned trial court shall verify the compromise after ascertaining the identity of the respective parties and send a report before the next date of listing. Put up this matter on 12.11.2025 in the list of fresh cases. Till the next date of listing the proceedings of Case No. 531 of 2024 (State vs. Mangal Dev) arising out Case Crime No. 59 of 2024 under Section 376(2)(N), 344 IPC P.S. Laliya, Balrampur pending before the learned A.C.J.M., Balrampur as well as the chargesheet no. 2/2024 dated

09.05.2024 and summoning order dated 18.05.2024 shall remain stayed insofar as it relates to the applicants. 3 A482 No. 6633 of 2025 Original copy of the compromise shall be returned to the learned counsel for the applicants for verification by the learned trial court."

6. It was directed that the parties shall appear before the trial court and submit the compromise before the learned trial court for verification within a period of two weeks. The learned trial court shall verify the compromise after ascertaining the identity of the respective parties and send a report before the next date of listing, i.e., 12.11.2025. The applicant and opposite party No.2 were present. The verification of the compromise has been received from the office of District Judge, Balrampur, verified by Judicial Magistrate-I, Balrampur dated 9.10.2025. The compromise dated 9.10.2025 entered into between opposite party No.2/victim and the sole applicant on 9.10.2025. Both are major. The victim is 26 years of age and the applicant is 27 years of age.

7. Both the parties had jointly filed the compromise, which is verified by the concerned Judicial Magistrate-I, Balrampur dated 9.10.2025 where both the parties agreed that they had entered into a compromise. Opposite party No.2/victim does not want to proceed any further in the case against the applicant. Opposite party No.2-victim also admitted that she has entered into the compromise with her own will and consent without any undue influence or coercion. Both the parties had been verified by their learned counsel before the learned Magistrate. The said compromise is part of the record.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 jointly relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Madhukar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415, wherein in paragraphs No.6, 7, 8 and 9, it held as under: "6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the 4 A482 No. 6633 of 2025 power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.

7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the seond FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutal understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complaint, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.

8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process." 5 A482 No. 6633 of 2025

9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the compromise entered into between the first informant/complainant/opposite party No.2 and the applicant-Mangal Dev as well as looking to the fact that both are major and they have entered into the compromise by their own free-will and consent without any coercion or undue influence and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhukar and others (supra), the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose in this case.

10. Resultantly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

11. Accordingly, the impugned charge-sheet dated 9.5.2024 bearing charge-sheet No.2 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2024 under Section 376(2)(n), 344 IPC, Police Station-Laliya, District-Balrampur as well as summoning order dated 18.5.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur in Case No.531 of 2024 (State vs. Mangal Dev) including entire proceeding of the case, stand quashed. November 12, 2025 LNTripathi (Abdul Shahid,J.) LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. Applicant-Mangal Dev has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 9.5.2024 bearing charge-sheet No.2 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2024 under Section 376(2)(n), 344 IPC, Police Station-Laliya, District-Balrampur as well as summoning order dated 18.5.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur in Case No.531 of 2024 (State vs. Mangal Dev) including entire proceeding of the case.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Case Crime No.59 of 2024 has been lodged on the complaint of Smt.Ramawati against (i) Mangal Dev, (ii) Motilal, (iii) Radhey Shyam and (iv) Tulsi Ram under Section 376, 344 and 392 IPC. After investigation, no offence under Section 392 IPC was found against them. All are exonerated from the charges under Section 392 IPC. The only offence was found against accused applicant Mangal Dev Yadav s/o Motilal under Section 376 (2) (n), 344 IPC. The charge- sheet has been filed against the applicant only.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 have jointly submitted before this Court 2 A482 No. 6633 of 2025 that the parties had entered into a compromise. The complainant-opposite party No.2/first informant does not want to further pursue the prosecution against the sole applicant.

5. This Court has passed the order dated 11.9.2025, which reads as under: "Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Abdul Samad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 jointly submit that the victim and the applicant have got married and are residing together. The parties have arrived at a compromise and the compromise has been reduced to writing. The parties do not wish to continue with the prosecution of the criminal case in view of the aforesaid compromise. The parties shall appear before the trial court and submit the compromise before the learned trial court for verification within a period of two weeks. The learned trial court shall verify the compromise after ascertaining the identity of the respective parties and send a report before the next date of listing. Put up this matter on 12.11.2025 in the list of fresh cases. Till the next date of listing the proceedings of Case No. 531 of 2024 (State vs. Mangal Dev) arising out Case Crime No. 59 of 2024 under Section 376(2)(N), 344 IPC P.S. Laliya, Balrampur pending before the learned A.C.J.M., Balrampur as well as the chargesheet no. 2/2024 dated

09.05.2024 and summoning order dated 18.05.2024 shall remain stayed insofar as it relates to the applicants. 3 A482 No. 6633 of 2025 Original copy of the compromise shall be returned to the learned counsel for the applicants for verification by the learned trial court."

6. It was directed that the parties shall appear before the trial court and submit the compromise before the learned trial court for verification within a period of two weeks. The learned trial court shall verify the compromise after ascertaining the identity of the respective parties and send a report before the next date of listing, i.e., 12.11.2025. The applicant and opposite party No.2 were present. The verification of the compromise has been received from the office of District Judge, Balrampur, verified by Judicial Magistrate-I, Balrampur dated 9.10.2025. The compromise dated 9.10.2025 entered into between opposite party No.2/victim and the sole applicant on 9.10.2025. Both are major. The victim is 26 years of age and the applicant is 27 years of age.

7. Both the parties had jointly filed the compromise, which is verified by the concerned Judicial Magistrate-I, Balrampur dated 9.10.2025 where both the parties agreed that they had entered into a compromise. Opposite party No.2/victim does not want to proceed any further in the case against the applicant. Opposite party No.2-victim also admitted that she has entered into the compromise with her own will and consent without any undue influence or coercion. Both the parties had been verified by their learned counsel before the learned Magistrate. The said compromise is part of the record.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 jointly relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Madhukar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415, wherein in paragraphs No.6, 7, 8 and 9, it held as under: "6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the 4 A482 No. 6633 of 2025 power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.

7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the seond FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutal understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complaint, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.

8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process." 5 A482 No. 6633 of 2025

9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the compromise entered into between the first informant/complainant/opposite party No.2 and the applicant-Mangal Dev as well as looking to the fact that both are major and they have entered into the compromise by their own free-will and consent without any coercion or undue influence and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhukar and others (supra), the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose in this case.

10. Resultantly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

11. Accordingly, the impugned charge-sheet dated 9.5.2024 bearing charge-sheet No.2 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2024 under Section 376(2)(n), 344 IPC, Police Station-Laliya, District-Balrampur as well as summoning order dated 18.5.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur in Case No.531 of 2024 (State vs. Mangal Dev) including entire proceeding of the case, stand quashed. November 12, 2025 LNTripathi (Abdul Shahid,J.) LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench