# Ajay Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 1034
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-07-09
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 11903 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ali Zamin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45912
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Quashing
of
criminal
proceedings
on
basis
of
compromise - Indian Penal Code- Section
320-
Non-Compoundable
offences
-
Section 363 and 366 - Inherent power is
of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in
accordance with the guideline engrafted
in such power viz: (i) to secure the ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of process
of any court. Even the offences which are
not compoundable can be quashed by
exercising inherent powers under section
482 Cr.P.C. While exercising such power
High Court has to consider whether
offences are arising out of family dispute
where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute, if it is so,
then High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, on account of
the compromise between the offender and
the victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of the
criminal case would put the accused to
great
oppression
and
prejudice
and
extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal case despite
full
and
complete
settlement
and
compromise
with
the
victim.
While
exercising such power High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity
of the crime. Heinous and serious offences
of mental depravity or offences like,
murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be
quashed even though victim or victim's
family and offender have settled the
dispute as such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on the
society. Offences under special statutes
like prevention of Corruption Act or
offences committed by public servants
while acting in that capacity also cannot
be quashed. The offences which have been
levelled against the applicants are of
private in nature and have not serious
impact on the society. Opposite party No.
2 has also filed a short counter affidavit
stating therein that now he has accepted
9 All. Ajay Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1035
applicant no. 1 as his son-in-law and no
dispute remains between them.

It is settled law that in the exercise of its
inherent powers u/s 482 of the Cr.Pc, the High
Court can quash the criminal proceedings in the
event of the parties arriving at a compromise
even in non-compoundable offences, provided
the offences are not heinous or grave and are
either matrimonial or civil disputes, which are
private in nature, and the possibility of the court
securing the conviction of the accused as a
result of compromise is remote or impossible.
(Para 13, 15)

Criminal Application allowed. (E-3)

Case Law relied upon/ Discussed: -

## Text

1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Since, the instant case has arisen out of
family dispute and parties have arrived at a
compromise, the wrong is of private and
personal nature, have not impact on the
society. In such circumstance, to let the
proceeding continuing before the trial court
will be nothing but a futile exercise, waste
of time and energy only, therefore, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, it is a
fit case to exercise the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings of
aforementioned case.

13. Accordingly, the entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No.1883 of 2019 (State vs.
Kashi Nath Pandey and others), arising out of
Case Crime No.393 of 2019, under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Rohaniya,
District Varanasi, pending in the court of
Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi is
hereby quashed.

14. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is allowed.

15. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the concerned trial court.
----------
(2020)09ILR A1034
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALI ZAMIN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 11903 of 2020

Ajay Kumar & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, Sri Abhay Krishn

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Ajay Kumar Jagdish

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Quashing
of
criminal
proceedings
on
basis
of
compromise - Indian Penal Code- Section
320-
Non-Compoundable
offences
-
Section 363 and 366 - Inherent power is
of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in
accordance with the guideline engrafted
in such power viz: (i) to secure the ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of process
of any court. Even the offences which are
not compoundable can be quashed by
exercising inherent powers under section
482 Cr.P.C. While exercising such power
High Court has to consider whether
offences are arising out of family dispute
where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute, if it is so,
then High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, on account of
the compromise between the offender and
the victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of the
criminal case would put the accused to
great
oppression
and
prejudice
and
extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal case despite
full
and
complete
settlement
and
compromise
with
the
victim.
While
exercising such power High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity
of the crime. Heinous and serious offences
of mental depravity or offences like,
murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be
quashed even though victim or victim's
family and offender have settled the
dispute as such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on the
society. Offences under special statutes
like prevention of Corruption Act or
offences committed by public servants
while acting in that capacity also cannot
be quashed. The offences which have been
levelled against the applicants are of
private in nature and have not serious
impact on the society. Opposite party No.
2 has also filed a short counter affidavit
stating therein that now he has accepted
9 All. Ajay Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1035
applicant no. 1 as his son-in-law and no
dispute remains between them.

It is settled law that in the exercise of its
inherent powers u/s 482 of the Cr.Pc, the High
Court can quash the criminal proceedings in the
event of the parties arriving at a compromise
even in non-compoundable offences, provided
the offences are not heinous or grave and are
either matrimonial or civil disputes, which are
private in nature, and the possibility of the court
securing the conviction of the accused as a
result of compromise is remote or impossible.
(Para 13, 15)

Criminal Application allowed. (E-3)

Case Law relied upon/ Discussed: -

1. Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia & ors. Vs
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & ors., (1988)
1 SCC 692

2. B.S. Joshi & ors. Vs. St. of Har. & ors., (2003)
4 SCC 675

3. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr. (2012) 10
SCC 303

4. Yogendra Yadav & ors. Vs St. of Jhar. & ors.
(2014) 9 SCC 653

5. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr. (2017) 9
SCC 641.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ali Zamin, J.)

1. Sri Ajay Kumar Jagdish, learned
counsel for the opposite party No.2 filed short
counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Ram Kumar Dubey learned
counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for
the State, Sri Ajay Kumar Jagdish, learned
counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused
the material on record.

3. The present application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash
the
impugned
charge
sheet
dated
09.01.2016 as well as the entire criminal
proceeding of Criminal Case No. 5224 of
2017 (State Vs. Ajay and others), under
sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., arising out of
case crime No. 617 of 2015 in terms of
compromise
dated
04.03.2020
arrived
between the parties, pending in the Court of
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Hasanpur, District- Amroha.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that F.I.R. under sections 363, 366
I.P.C. was lodged on 01.11.2015 by the
informant-opposite party no.2 Sri Banke
Lal that applicant No.1 Ajay Kumar with
assistance
of
applicant
no.2
Kamal
kidnapped his daughter aged about 16 years
from his house at a time, when no family
member was there in the house. They also
took away jewellery of about Rs. one lakh
and Rs.35,000/- cash as well as pass book
of the bank. He submits that as per High
School Certificate date of birth of victim is
16.04.1998 but this date of birth is not
exact one, real fact is that Samiksha was
major, applicant and victim developed love
affair and decided to marry but Opposite
Party No. 2, father of the victim, was
opposed to the marriage that is why he
lodged the F.I.R. against the applicants.
Applicant no.1 and victim solemnized
marriage on 18.04.2016 and they are living
as husband and wife. At present they have
two kids also and parties have also arrived
at a compromise in the matter. Informantopposite
party
no.2
Banke
Lal
on
04.03.2020 has moved an application
before the trial court that applicant no.1 has
married his daughter and at present they
have two kids also. Now there is no dispute
between the parties, hence the case should
be disposed off in terms of compromise. He
prays that the criminal proceeding against
the applicants be quashed.
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Learned A.G.A. opposes and
submits that at the time of incident as per
High School Certificate victim was minor
below 18 years, so on the basis of
compromise it can not be disposed off.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 submits that applicant no.1 and
daughter of Opposite Party No.2 had love
affair and both decided to enter into
marriage. To marry Ajay Kumar the
applicant no.1 , daughter of opposite party
No.2 had left her parental house and
married him. She is living also with the
applicant no.1 as husband and wife. Since
opposite party no.2 was not happy with the
aforesaid marriage on account of which he
had lodged the F.I.R. Applicant no.1 and
opposite party no.2 on 04.03.2020 have
entered
into
a
compromise.
In
the
compromise it has been mentioned that
now opposite party no.2 has accepted the
applicant No.1 as his son-in-law and no
dispute exists between the applicant and
opposite party no. 2. There is no dispute
between applicant no.1 and daughter of
Opposite Party No.2 also, they have two
kids and they are living as husband and
wife and leading a happy marital life.
Matter has been resolved between the
parties. Therefore he prays that case may
be disposed of in terms of the compromise.

7. The offences of section 363 and
366
I.P.C.
are
not
compoundable.
Therefore, in the instant case considerable
issue is, whether the criminal proceeding
can be quashed or not. To decide the issue
involved in the case, it will be apt to refer
the following cases.

8. In Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia
and others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao
Angre and others, 1988, 1 SCC 692, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while
exercising inherent powers of quashing
under section 482, it is for the High Court
to take into consideration any special
features which appear in a particular case to
consider whether it is expedient and in the
interest of justice to permit a prosecution to
continue, the Court may, while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case,
also quash the proceedings.

9. In B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State
of Haryana and others, (2003) 4 SCC 675,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
the High Court in exercise of its inherent
powers can quash the criminal proceedings
or complaint and section 320 of the Code
does not limit or affect the powers under
section 482 of the Code.

10. In Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and another ( 2012) 10 SCC 303,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:-

"Where High Court quashes a
criminal proceeding having regard to the
fact that the dispute between the offender
and the victim has been settled although
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 restored; securing the ends of
justice therefore, being the ultimate guiding
factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which
have harmful effect on the public and
consist in wrong doing that seriously
endangers and threatens well-being of
society and it is not safe to leave the crime-
doer only because he and the victim have
settled the dispute amicably or that the
victim has been paid compensation, yet
certain
crimes
have
been
made
compoundable in law, with or without
9 All. Ajay Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1037
permission of the Court. In respect of
serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity,
etc; or other offences of mental depravity
under IPC or offences of moral turpitude
under special statutes, like the Prevention
of
Corruption
Act
or
the
offences
committed
by
public
servants
while
working in that capacity, the settlement
between the offender and victim can have
no legal sanction at all. However, certain
offences
which
overwhelmingly
and
predominantly bear civil flavour having
arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial,
financial,
partnership
or
such
like
transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony, particularly relating to dowry,
etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong
is basically to the victim and the offender
and victim have settled all disputes between
them amicably, irrespective of the fact that
such
offences
have
not
been
made
compoundable, the High Court may within
the framework of its inherent power, quash
the
criminal
proceeding
or
criminal
complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on
the face of such settlement, there is hardly
any likelihood of the offender being
convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and
ends of justice shall be defeated. The above
list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each
case will depend on its own facts and no
hard and fast category can be prescribed."

11. In Yogendra Yadav and others
Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (2014)
9 SCC 653, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:-

"The High Court can quash a
criminal proceeding in exercise of its
power under Section 482 of the Code
having regard to the fact that the parties
have amicably settled their disputes and the
victim has no objection, even though the
offences are non-compoundable. In which
cases the High Court can exercise its
discretion to quash the proceedings will
depend on facts and circumstances of each
case.
Offences
which
involve
moral
turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder
etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the
proceedings because that will have harmful
effect on the society. Such offences cannot
be said to be restricted to two individuals
or two groups. If such offences are
quashed, it may send wrong signal to the
society. However, when the High Court is
convinced that the offences are entirely
personal in nature and, therefore, do not
affect public peace or tranquility and
where it feels that quashing of such
proceedings on account of compromise
would bring about peace and would secure
ends of justice, it should not hesitate to
quash them. In such cases, the prosecution
becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing
such a lame prosecution would be waste of
time and energy. That will also unsettle the
compromise and obstruct restoration of
peace."

12. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir
Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur
and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and
Another (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-

"The power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from
the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section
320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it
has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i)
to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any court.
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
In what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the victim
have settled their dispute would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case
and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power,
the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the
victim or victim's family and the offender
have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have a serious
impact
on
society.
Similarly,
any
compromise between the victim and the
offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis
for
quashing
criminal
proceedings
involving such offences. But the criminal
cases
having
overwhelmingly
and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile,
civil, partnership or such like transactions
or the offences arising out of matrimony
relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute.
In this category of cases, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceedings if in its
view, because of the compromise between
the offender and the victim, the possibility
of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put
the accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal
case despite full and complete settlement
and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to
the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement
and compromise between the victim and the
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends
of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to
the above question(s) is in the affirmative,
the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction
to
quash
the
criminal
proceeding."

13. From the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
referred cases, it is very much clear that
inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accordance with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz: (i) to secure
the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse
of process of any court. In what cases
power of quashing, may be exercised
would
depend
upon
the
facts
and
circumstances of each case and no category
can be prescribed. Even the offences which
are not compoundable can be quashed by
exercising inherent powers under section
482 Cr.P.C. While exercising such power
High Court has to consider whether
offences are arising out of family dispute
where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute, if it is so, then
High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, on account of the
compromise between the offender and the
victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of the
criminal case would put the accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not
9 All. Ajay Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1039
quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with
the victim. While exercising such power
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like, murder, rape, dacoity etc.
cannot be quashed even though victim or
victim's family and offender have settled
the dispute as such offences are not private
in nature and have a serious impact on the
society. Offences under special statutes like
prevention of Corruption Act or offences
committed by public servants while acting
in that capacity also cannot be quashed. It
can be put in other words that while
exercising inherent power the High Court
also must consider whether it would be
unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding
would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that the criminal case be put to
an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceeding.

14. In the instant case, it is alleged that
applicant No. 1 Ajay Kumar kidnapped
daughter of Opposite Party No. 2 aged about
16 years. As per High School Certificate date
of birth of the victim is 16.04.1998, as such
on the date of the incident the victim was
aged about 17 years and 06 months. It is also
submitted that the date of birth of the victim
recorded in the High School Certificate is not
exact one and at the time of the incident she
was major. It is further submitted that on
18.04.2016 applicant no. 1 and victim
solemnized marriage, since then they are
passing their marital life happily and they
have also at present two kids from their
wedlock. The offences alleged do not come
within the category of heinous or serious
offences of mental depravity, murder, rape or
dacoity which cannot be quashed as held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred
cases. On the other hand the offences which
have been levelled against the applicants are
of private in nature and have not serious
impact on the society. Opposite party No. 2
has also filed a short counter affidavit stating
therein that now he has accepted applicant
no. 1 Ajay Kumar as his son-in-law and no
dispute remains between them.

15. Considering that on account of
compromise between the parties, there are
remote and bleak chances of conviction.
Appellant no.1 Ajay Kumar and victim have
two kids also and offences are private in nature
and have not serious impact on society, to let
continuing the case proceeding will be nothing
but waste of time and energy of the Court only.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case
as discussed above to secure the ends of justice
for the parites, it is a fit case to quash the
impugned charge sheet dated 09.01.2016 as
well as the entire criminal proceeding of
Criminal Case No. 5224 of 2017 (State Vs.
Ajay and others), under section 363 and 366
I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No. 617 of
2015 in terms of compromise dated 04.03.2020
arrived between the parties, pending in the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hasanpur, District- Amroha by exercising the
power provided under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of
the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

16. The application under section 482
Cr.P.C. is allowed.

17. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the concerned trial court.
----------
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)09ILR A1040
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12144 of 2020

Dakshpal Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashish Goyal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act- Section 29- Appeal -
Challenged through Criminal Application u/s
482 Cr.Pc - Alternative remedy- Settled by
Full Bench in Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State
of U.P. reported in 2016 (11) ADJ 29 that a
revision under Section 397/401 of Cr P C
against a judgment and order passed by the
Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the
Act, 2005 is maintainable- The applicant has
statutory alternative remedy of filing a
revision. Consequently, present application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed on
the ground of alternative remedy.

An appellate order passed u/s 29 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act can only be challenged through a criminal
revision and an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
challenging the order u/s 29 of the Act is not
maintainable, as held by the Full Bench of this
Court in Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of
U.P. reported in 2016 (11) ADJ 29.

Criminal Application dismissed. (E-3)

Case law relied upon/ Discussed: -

1. Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs St. of U.P. reported
in 2016 (11) ADJ 29
(Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Goyal, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Prashant
Kumar, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri P.K.
Shahi, for the State.

2. By means of this application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has
challenged the order dated 27.02.2020
passed by the Addl. Session Judge, Court
No. 16, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 137
of 2019 9Dakshpal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and others0 as well as the ordered
27..03.2019 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate,Court no. 07,Agra in
complaint case No. 1415 of 2017 (Smt.
Vijay Laxmi & Twinkal and others Vs.
Dakshpal Singh), under section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, police Station Jagdishpura,
District Agra.

3. The brief facts of this case are that
that opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint
under section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act in
Police station- Jagdishpura, District- Agra
before the court below on 15.07.2017
against the applicant and other family
members. On 27.03.2019 the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 7 granted the interim maintenance in
favour of the opposite party No. 2 and
directed the applicant to pay Rs. 8,000/- per
month from the opposite party no. 2 and
Rs. 2,000/- per month for her minor child
on 10th date of each month.

4. After passing the aforesaid order
the applicant moved a criminal appeal
before the court of District & Sessions
Judge, Agra on 07.05.2019 and challenged
the order dated 27.03.2019 passed by the
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.