# Constable Vishram Singh & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 563
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-03
- **Case number:** Crl. Rev. No. 1305 of 2006
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/constable-vishram-singh-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-45463
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Section
397/401
&
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498-A,
323,506-application-compromise between
the parties (husband & wife)-on the basis
of settlement they are living together
again and two cases were decided before
the family court-technicalities and hyper
technicalities should not come in between
to disturb married life-the revisionists are
acquitted. (Para 3 to 17)

B. Certain offences, which bear civil
flavour, particularly relating to dowry and
family
dispute,
where
the
wrong
is
basically to victim and offender and victim
have settled the 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 offender being
convicted
and
by
not
quashing
the
criminal proceedings, justice shall be
casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated.(Para 9 to 11)

The Revision is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

12 All. Constable Vishram Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
563
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or the certified copy issued by
the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(v) The computer generated copy of
such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

(vi)
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.

However, considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the
court below is directed to make every
possible endeavour to conclude the trial of
the aforesaid case within a period of four
months from today without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties.
----------
(2020)12ILR A563
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Crl. Rev. No. 1305 of 2006

Constable Vishram Singh & Ors.
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri S.R. Sahu

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Section
397/401
&
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498-A,
323,506-application-compromise between
the parties (husband & wife)-on the basis
of settlement they are living together
again and two cases were decided before
the family court-technicalities and hyper
technicalities should not come in between
to disturb married life-the revisionists are
acquitted. (Para 3 to 17)

B. Certain offences, which bear civil
flavour, particularly relating to dowry and
family
dispute,
where
the
wrong
is
basically to victim and offender and victim
have settled the 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 offender being
convicted
and
by
not
quashing
the
criminal proceedings, justice shall be
casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated.(Para 9 to 11)

The Revision is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Gian Singh Vs St. of Panj. , (2012) 10 SCC 303

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

3. Bitan Sengupta & Anr. Vs St. of W.B. &
Anr.,(2018) 18 SCC 366.

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

5. A.R. Antulay Vs R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602

6.
Montreal
Street
Railway
Company
Vs
Normadin, (1917) AC 170

7. St. of Guj. Vs Ram Prakash P. Puri, (1969) 3
SCC 156

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Irshad Husain, learned brief holder for the
State of U.P. Sri S.R. Sahu, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2
is not present even when the case is called
up in the revised list.

2. The trial court record was
summoned which has been received on
08.09.2016 as per the office report, the
same has also been perused.

3. By means of the judgment and
order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Banda, in Criminal
Case No. 2383 of 2001 (Smt. Usha
Prajapati Vs. Constable Vishram Singh &
others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 506
IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Banda,
the revisionists Constable Vishram Singh,
Karelal, Rajesh and Smt. Sumitra have
been convicted and sentenced under
Section 498-A IPC for one year simple
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each.
Further, Constable Vishram Singh, the
revisionist no.1 has been convicted and
sentenced under Sections 323, 504 IPC for
three months simple imprisonment. The
revisionists Constable Vishram Singh,
Karelal and Rajesh have further been
convicted and sentenced under Section 506
IPC to six months simple imprisonment
each.

4. Against the said judgment and
order of conviction dated 31.08.2005, the
revisionists preferred an appeal before the
Sessions Judge which was numbered as
Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2005 (Vishram
Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.) which
was decided vide judgment and order dated
01.03.2006 passed by the Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Court
No.4,
Banda,
wherein the Appellate Court acquitted the
accused persons of charges under Sections
323, 504 IPC and in so far as it related to
the offences under Sections 498-A, 506
IPC, the conviction of the appellants were
maintained but the sentences as awarded to
them was modified and they were given
benefit of Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and they
were ordered to be released on probation of
good conduct for a period of one year, for
which, it was ordered that they will file bail
bonds and sureties.

5. This revision is thus preferred
against the said judgment and order dated
31.08.2005 passed by the trial court and the
judgment and order dated 01.03.2006
passed by the appellate court.

6. The issue in the present matter rests
on a very small compass. The opposite
party no.2 Smt. Usha Prajapati, daughter of
Ramadheen is the wife of Revisionist
No.1/Constable Vishram Singh. She had
filed a complaint dated 30.07.2001 against
Vishram Singh, Karelal, Rajesh, Smt.
Sumitra, Shiv Rani and Chunnuvadi for
offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506
IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Banda which was numbered as
Criminal Complaint No. 2383/IX of 2001
titled as (Smt. Usha Prajapati Vs. Vishram
Singh and others) PS- Kotwali Nagar,
District Banda, in which, four accused
persons who are the revisionists here, were
summoned to face trial. The marriage
between the opposite party no.2/Usha
Prajapati and the revisionist no.1/Constable
Vishram Singh was solemnized in May,
1996. Subsequently, the trial in the matter
was conducted and the convictions were
recorded as stated above by the trial court.
The appeal against the said judgment was
filed which was decided by the judgment
and order as also stated above. The present
revision is thus before this Court against
both the judgment and orders.
12 All. Constable Vishram Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
565

7. The allegations as levelled in the
case are not being dealt with and even the
evidence is not being dealt with by this
Court as the issue in the present matter is
only to the extent that since the parties have
entered
into
compromise
during
the
pendency of the appeal which was taken
due note of by the Appellate Court and the
said compromise was also verified before
the Court concerned and further two
matters in the Family Court were also
decided
on
the
basis
of
the
said
compromise, the revision may be allowed
and the impugned judgments and orders be
set aside. The compromise between the
parties was to the effect that the husband
and wife had settled their disputes and were
living together as husband and wife again
and as such the Appellate Court had taken
note of the same and though maintaining
the conviction had modified the sentenced
as awarded. This Court as of now has under
powers of its revisional jurisdiction been
knocked to set aside the conviction of the
revisionists. The dispute between the
parties was a matrimonial dispute.

8. In view of the settlement arrived
between the revisionist no.1 and opposite
party no.2 on the basis of which two
matters before the Family Court had been
decided and the compromise was duly
verified by the concerned court below and
the revisionist no.1/Constable Vishram
Singh and the opposite party no.2 Smt.
Usha Prajapati are living together as
husband and wife again after the said
dispute. Section 397 Cr.P.C. reads as
under:-

" 397. Calling for records to
exercise powers of revision.

(1) The High Court or any
Sessions Judge may call for and examine
the record of any proceeding before any
inferior Criminal Court situate within its or
his local jurisdiction for the purpose of
satisfying itself or himself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order,- recorded or
passed, and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such inferior Court, and
may, when calling for such record, direct
that the execution of any sentence or order
be suspended, and if the accused is in
confinement, that he be released on bail or
on his own bond pending the examination
of the record.

Explanation. - All Magistrates whether
Executive
or
Judicial,
and
whether
exercising original or appellate jurisdiction,
shall be deemed to be inferior to the
Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-
section and of section 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred
by sub- section (1) shall not be exercised in
relation to any interlocutory order passed in
any
appeal,
inquiry,
trial
or
other
proceeding.

(3) If an application under this section
has been made by any person either to the
High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no
further application by the same person shall
be entertained by the other of them."

9. The Apex Court in the case of Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC
303 in para 58 has held as under:-

"58. Where High Court quashes a
criminal proceeding having regard to the
fact that dispute between the offender and
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
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and peace is restored; securing the ends of
justice 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 wellbeing 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 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 Prevention
of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity,
the settlement between 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 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
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."

10. Further in para 61 of the judgment
in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the Apex
Court has further held that where the
parties have entered into compromise
particularly in the matters predominantly of
civil nature, matrimonial relating to dowry
and family dispute etc. which are of private
and personal nature, the High Court may
quash the proceedings in such matters. Para
61 of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:

"61. The position that emerges from
the above discussion can be summarised
thus: 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. In what
cases
power
to
quash
the
criminal
proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and 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 serious
impact
on
society.
Similarly,
any
compromise between the victim and
offender in relation to the offences under
special
statutes
like
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
12 All. Constable Vishram Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
567
such offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil
flavour stand on 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, High Court
may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the
offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction
is
remote
and
bleak
and
continuation of criminal case would put
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
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is
put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash
the criminal proceeding."

11. Further, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir
@ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others
Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC
641, the Apex Court has laid down the category of
cases in which the offences can be compounded,
the said guidelines are extracted herein-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 recognises 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
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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."

12. In the case of Bitan Sengupta
and another Vs. State of West Bengal
and another: (2018) 18 SCC 366, the
Apex Court has held that even after
dismissal of the revision by the High Court,
by which, the judgment of the Sessions
Court was concurred, the parties had
entered into compromise and had settled
the matter and they had decided the keep
harmony between them to enable them to
live with peace and love and by following
the spirit of the law laid down in the case of
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana: (2003) 4
SCC 675, the Apex Court set aside the
order of conviction against the accused
persons.

13. In the present case, the situation
as was in the case of Bitan Sengupta
(supra) is even better. In the said case, the
parties had entered into a compromise by
way of getting themselves separated and
they had acted upon the said settlement and
took mutual divorce on that basis but in the
present case, the parties have entered into a
settlement which was acted upon in two
cases filed before the Family Court and the
revisionist no.1 and the opposite party no.2
have decided to live together and are living
together again as husband and wife.

14. This Court while exercising
powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is also
vested with powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
Court can also exercise its powers exdebito justitiae to reach to a judgment to
secure the ends of justice between the
parties.

A Bench of Seven Judges of the Apex
Court in the case of A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S.
Nayak: (1988) 2 SCC 602 have pointed out
that no man is above the law, but at the
same time no man can be denied his rights
12 All. Naved @ Kadeer Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
569
under the constitutions and the laws, and no
man should suffer a wrong by technical and
procedure irregularities. It was observed
referring to the judgment of Montreal
Street Railway Company Vs. Normadin:
1917 AC 170 as follows:

"All rules of court are nothing but
provisions intended to secure proper
administration of justice. It is, therefore,
essential that they should be made to serve
and be subordinate to that purpose".

It is further observed in the said
judgment referring to the judgment of State
of Gujarat Vs. Ram Prakash P.Puri: (1969)
3 SCC 156 as follows:-

"Procedure has been described to be a
handmaid and not a mistress of law,
intended to subserve and facilitate the
cause of justice and not to govern or
obstruct it. Like all rules of procedure, this
rule demand a construction which would
promote this cause."

15. In the present case, since the
husband and wife have arrived at a
settlement between them, have got two
cases before the Family Court decided on
the basis of the said settlement and are
living together as husband and wife again,
technicalities
and
hyper
technicalities
should not come in between to disturb their
married life.

16. This Court thus by exercising its
powers sets aside the judgment and order of
conviction dated 31.08.2005 passed by the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Banda
in
Criminal Case No. 2383 of 2001 (Smt.
Usha Prajapati Vs. Constable Vishram
Singh & others) under Sections 498-A,
323, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District
Banda and the judgment and order dated
01.03.2006 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Banda in
Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2005 (Vishram
Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.). The
revisionists are acquitted of the charges
levelled against them.

17. The revision is thus allowed.

18. Office is directed to return the
trial court records to the trial court
forthwith.

19. A copy of this judgment be also
certified to the concerned District and
Sessions Judge for its compliance and
necessary action.

20. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded from
the official website of High Court Allahabad.

21. The computer generated copy of
such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

22.

The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2020)12ILR A569
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Crl. Rev. No. 2032 of 2020

Naved @ Kadeer ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties