# Ankit Saxena & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1241
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-03
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 3119 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajai Kumar Srivastava- I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ankit-saxena-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49852
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
Section
482
CrPC-
Quashing of criminal proceedings between
the
parties-
dispute
arising
out
of
matrimonial discord- private in natureguidelines laid down for quashing of
criminal
proceedings
-
overwhelming
element of private dispute-no heinous
offence
involved-such
criminal
proceedings may be quashed-application
allowed.

HELD:
Adverting to the facts of this case, it is not
disputed that the present first information report
was
an
outcome
of
matrimonial
dispute
between the parties i.e. opposite party No.2 and
the applicants, which is an overwhelming
element of a private dispute. Therefore, having
regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rangappa Javoor vs. The
State of Karnataka and another reported in
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74 and Jasmair Singh and
another vs. State of Haryana and another
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 73 in respect of
quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of
compromise entered into between the parties
and considering the aforesaid overall facts and
circumstances of the present case, submissions
made by counsel for parties and upon the
perusal of material on record, it appears that
during pendency of the present application,
parties have already settled their dispute
voluntarily
and
amicably.
Compromise
so
entered into by parties have been verified by
learned court below. This fact has not been
denied by learned counsel for opposite parties.
As of now, no difference exists between parties.
Consequently, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no useful purpose shall be served
by prolonging the proceedings of above
mentioned case. In view of compromise entered
into by the parties, chances of conviction of
accused applicants are also remote and bleak.
Resultantly, continuation of proceedings would
thus, itself cause injustice to parties. The instant
trial would only entail loss of precious judicial
time in a futile pursuit.

In view of above, the instant application
succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Ankit Saxena & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1241
(2023) 4 ILRA 1241
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA- I, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 3119 of 2023

Ankit Saxena & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Manish Bajpai. Sri Pradeep Kumar
Maurya

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Section
482
CrPC-
Quashing of criminal proceedings between
the
parties-
dispute
arising
out
of
matrimonial discord- private in natureguidelines laid down for quashing of
criminal
proceedings
-
overwhelming
element of private dispute-no heinous
offence
involved-such
criminal
proceedings may be quashed-application
allowed.

HELD:
Adverting to the facts of this case, it is not
disputed that the present first information report
was
an
outcome
of
matrimonial
dispute
between the parties i.e. opposite party No.2 and
the applicants, which is an overwhelming
element of a private dispute. Therefore, having
regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rangappa Javoor vs. The
State of Karnataka and another reported in
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74 and Jasmair Singh and
another vs. State of Haryana and another
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 73 in respect of
quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of
compromise entered into between the parties
and considering the aforesaid overall facts and
circumstances of the present case, submissions
made by counsel for parties and upon the
perusal of material on record, it appears that
during pendency of the present application,
parties have already settled their dispute
voluntarily
and
amicably.
Compromise
so
entered into by parties have been verified by
learned court below. This fact has not been
denied by learned counsel for opposite parties.
As of now, no difference exists between parties.
Consequently, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no useful purpose shall be served
by prolonging the proceedings of above
mentioned case. In view of compromise entered
into by the parties, chances of conviction of
accused applicants are also remote and bleak.
Resultantly, continuation of proceedings would
thus, itself cause injustice to parties. The instant
trial would only entail loss of precious judicial
time in a futile pursuit.

In view of above, the instant application
succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

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

2. Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal
& anr. Vs The St. of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC
834

3. Ramawatar Vs St. of M.P. reported in 2021
SCC OnLine SC 966

4. Rangappa Javoor Vs The St. of Karnataka &
anr. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74

5. Jasmair Singh & anr. Vs St. of Har. & anr.
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 73

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Kumar
Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Sri Anurag Singh, Advocate
has put in appearance on behalf of
opposite party No.2 by filing his
vakalatnama in Court today, which is
taken on record.
1242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Heard Sri Santosh Srivastava,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Manish
Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicants,
Sri Rajesh Verma, learned A.G.A. for the
State, Sri Anurag Singh, learned counsel
for opposite party No.2 and perused the
material available on record.

3. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants for quashing the impugned
charge sheet dated 15.01.2019 as well as
impugned order dated 31.10.2019 passed
by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.28, Lucknow in Case
No.95003 of 2019.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
has submitted that a first information report
came to be lodged against the accused/
applicant on the basis of false facts in order
to implicate the accused/ applicants.

5. His further submission is that there
are vague and general allegations against
all the accused/ applicants in the first
information report, which do not constitute
any offence as alleged in the first
information report.

6. His next submission is that during
investigation, no credible offence against
the present accused/ applicants could be
collected. Despite this fact, a charge sheet
came to be laid against the present accused/
applicants.

7. His further submission is that the
learned trial court vide impugned order
dated
31.10.2019
mechanically
took
cognizance of the matter and issued process
to the applicants to appear and stand trial.

8. His next submission is that the
continuation of such proceeding is nothing
but an abuse of process of this Court and
malicious prosecution too. He has also
submitted that as the dispute related to the
matrimonial discord between the parties,
the parties settled their dispute and filed a
compromise, which has been sent for
verification by a coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 01.03.2023 passed
in Application U/s 482 No.2108 of 2023
titled as Ankit Saxena and others vs. State
of U.P. and another.

9. His further submission is that
pursuant
to
aforesaid
order
dated
01.03.2023, the learned trial court has
verified the compromise vide order dated
18.03.2023. A copy of the same is annexed
as annexure No.6 to the instant application.

10.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants, therefore, submits that having
regard to the fact that the dispute between
the parties was essentially matrimonial in
nature, the parties settled their dispute.
Therefore,
the
impugned
criminal
proceeding deserves to be quashed as the
dispute-in-question is private in nature
which does not have any adverse societal
effect.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer.
However, learned counsel for opposite
party No.2 has very fairly admitted the fact
that the parties have settled their dispute
amicably and filed a compromise, which
came to be verified by the learned trial
court vide order dated 18.03.2023.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Parbatbhai
Aahir
@
Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs.
State of Gujarat and another reported in
(2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down the
following
guidelines
with
regard
to
quashing of criminal proceedings as well
4 All. Ankit Saxena & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1243
regarding
compromise
in
criminal
proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of
the judgment, which is quoted below:

"16. The broad principles which
emerge from the precedents on the subject,
may be summarised in the following
propositions.

16.1. Section 482 preserves the
inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any
court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It
only recognizes and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court;

16.2. The invocation of the
jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
First Information Report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement
has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding
an
offence.
While
compounding an offence, the power of the
court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion
whether
a
criminal
proceeding
or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High
Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the
inherent power;

16.4. While the inherent power of
the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
an abuse of the process of any court;

16.5. The decision as to whether
a complaint or First Information Report
should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated;

16.6. In the exercise of the power
under Section 482 and while dealing with a
plea that the dispute has been settled, the
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous
and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences;

16.7.
As
distinguished
from
serious offences, there may be criminal
cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing in so far as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash
is concerned;

16.8. Criminal cases involving
offences which arise from commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
partnership
or
similar transactions with an essentially
civil flavour may in appropriate situations
fall for quashing where parties have settled
the dispute;

16.9. In such a case, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceeding if
in view of the compromise between the
1244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would cause oppression and
prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception
to the principle set out in propositions 16.8
and
16.9
above.
Economic
offences
involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the state have implications which
lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in an activity
akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the
act complained of upon the financial or
economic
system
will
weigh
in
the
balance."

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012
(Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of
M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834, has
reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing
of criminal proceedings in view of
compromise. Following has been observed
in paragraph 18-19:-

"18. It is now a well crystalized
axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this
Court to impart complete justice under
Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or
restricted by ordinary statutory provisions.
It is also noteworthy that even in the
absence of an express provision akin to
Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on
the Supreme Court to abrogate and set
aside
criminal
proceedings,
the
jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142
of the Constitution embraces this Court
with scopious powers to quash criminal
proceedings also, so as to secure complete
justice. In doing so, due regard must be
given to the overarching objective of
sentencing in the criminal justice system,
which is grounded on the sub-lime
philosophy of maintenance of peace of the
collective and that the rationale of placing
an individual behind bars is aimed at his
reformation.

19. We thus sum-up and hold
that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C.
where the Court is squarely guided by the
compromise between the parties in respect
of offences 'compoundable' within the
statutory framework, the extra-ordinary
power enjoined upon a High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court
under Article 142 of the Constitution, can
be invoked beyond the metes and bounds
of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we
reiterate that such powers of wide
amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in
the
context
of
quashing
criminal
proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature
and effect of the offence on the conscious
of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the
injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of
compromise between accused and the
victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused
persons, prior to and after the occurrence
of the purported offence and/or other
relevant considerations."

(Emphasis supplied)

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramawatar v. State of M.P. reported in
2021 SCC OnLine SC 966, while
adverting
its
judgment
rendered
in
Ramgopal's case (supra), in para no.11
has held as under:-

"11. The Court in Ramgopal
(Supra) further postulated that criminal
proceedings involving non-heinous offences
or offences which are predominantly of a
private nature, could be set aside at any
4 All. Ankit Saxena & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1245
stage of the proceedings, including at the
appellate level. The Court, however, being
conscious of the fact that unscrupulous
offenders may attempt to escape their
criminal
liabilities
by
securing
a
compromise through brute force, threats,
bribes, or other such unethical and illegal
means, cautioned that in cases where a
settlement is struck post-conviction, the
Courts should, inter-alia, carefully examine
the fashion in which the compromise has
been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of
the accused before and after the incident in
question. While concluding, the Court also
formulated certain guidelines and held:

"19? Nonetheless, we reiterate
that such powers of wide amplitude ought
to be exercised carefully in the context of
quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in
mind : (i) Nature and effect of the offence
on the conscious of the society; (ii)
Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii)
Voluntary nature of compromise between
the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct
of the accused persons, prior to and after
the occurrence of the purported offence
and/or other relevant considerations.""

15. Adverting to the facts of this case,
it is not disputed that the present first
information report was an outcome of
matrimonial dispute between the parties i.e.
opposite party No.2 and the applicants,
which is an overwhelming element of a
private dispute. Therefore, having regard to
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rangappa Javoor vs. The State
of Karnataka and another reported in
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74 and Jasmair
Singh and another vs. State of Haryana
and another reported in (2022) 9 SCC 73
in
respect
of
quashing
of
criminal
proceedings on the basis of compromise
entered into between the parties and
considering the aforesaid overall facts and
circumstances
of
the
present
case,
submissions made by counsel for parties
and upon the perusal of material on record,
it appears that during pendency of the
present application, parties have already
settled
their
dispute
voluntarily
and
amicably. Compromise so entered into by
parties have been verified by learned court
below. This fact has not been denied by
learned counsel for opposite parties. As of
now, no difference exists between parties.
Consequently,
this
Court
is
of
the
considered opinion that no useful purpose
shall
be
served
by
prolonging
the
proceedings of above mentioned case. In
view of compromise entered into by the
parties, chances of conviction of accused
applicants are also remote and bleak.
Resultantly, continuation of proceedings
would thus, itself cause injustice to parties.
The instant trial would only entail loss of
precious judicial time in a futile pursuit.

16. In view of above, the instant
application succeeds and is liable to be
allowed.

17.

Accordingly,
the
instant
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
allowed.
Consequently,
the
entire
proceeding of Case No.95003 of 2019
arising out of F.I.R./ Case Crime No.104 of
2018, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506
I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police
Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow, is,
hereby, quashed.

18. Interim order, if any, stands
discharged.

19. Office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the Court concerned
through
email/fax
immediately
for
necessary compliance.
1246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1246
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 3934 of 2023

Kusum Devi & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri
Sachin
Mishra,
Sri
Akash
Deep
Srivastava, Sri Ayush Mishra, Sri Bala Nath
Mishra, Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, Sri Ram
Vishak Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Ved Prakash Shukla

A. Criminal Law-Application under Section
482 CrPC- summoning order and entire
proceedings- arising out of -section 306
IPC- challenged.

B. Section 306 IPC- Abetment of suicide-
Section 107 IPC- Abetment of a thing-
person charged of abetment- must gave
committed the act of abetment directly to
the deceased- suicide note in the instant
case- establishes- applicants by their acts-
continuous course of conduct- created a
situation- deceased perceiving no other
option except to commit suicide. (Paras 15
to 18)
HELD:
Perusal of the aforesaid suicide note as well as
the evidence available on record, this Court
finds substance in the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as
well as learned A.G.A. that prima facie case for
the alleged offence is made out against the
applicants. It is a clear case wherein the
applicants by their acts and by their continuous
course of conduct had created a situation which
led to the deceased perceiving no other option
except to commit suicide. Thus, the offence falls
within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. The
applicants had played an active role in forcing
the deceased to leave his job and he worked on
behalf of the license of his father, but only
minimal expenses for maintaining his wife and
child were given to him and eventually, the
property was also grabbed from him, therefore,
placed under these circumstances by the
applicant, the deceased had no other option but
to commit suicide. (Para15)

The question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the
accused and if the acts and deeds are only of
such nature where the accused intended
nothing more than harassment or snap show of
anger, a particular case may fall short of the
offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the
accused kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words or deeds until the deceased
reacted or was provoked, a particular case may
be that of abetment of suicide. From the details
of suicide note, which was sent on the mobile
phone of the informant by her husband through
mobile phone of her father-in-law, prove the
compelling circumstances and continued act of
annoying the deceased, which can be inferred
as instigation/abetment to commit suicide. (Para
17)

In the judgment of Apex Court in the case of
Ude Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in
(2019) 17 SCC 301, it has been held that if
the accused by his acts and by his continuous
course of conduct creates a situation which
leads the deceased perceiving no other option
except to commit suicide, the case may fall
within the fourcorners of Section 306 IPC. (Para
18)

C. Non-bailable warrants not issued in
cursory manner- Court should properly
balance-
personal
liberty
and
social
interest before issuing warrants- proper
procedure followed. (Para 20)
Held:
It is on 20.12.2022, non-bailable warrants have
been issued after service of summons upon the
accused applicants, therefore, the 11 bailable
warrants as well as non-bailable warrants have