# Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 692
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-05
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No.387 of 2022
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-ram-manohar-lohia-awadh-university-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49105
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. State Universities Act,
1973 - Issue - Whether the University has
the statutory power to debar a college
from acting as an examination center -
Held - Section 29 (2) of the Act empowers
the Examination Committee to supervise
generally
all
examinations
of
the
University & perform various functions as
given in its sub-clauses (a) to (d),
however
functions
assigned
to
the
Examination Committee in Sub-clauses (a)
to (d) of Section 29 (2) of the Act are not
exhaustive - the word 'generally' in S. 29
(2) empowers the Examination Committee
to take all possible actions and steps
which are necessary and required for
supervising
all
examinations
of
the
University - S. 29 madates the University
to ensure fairness in the examinations at
the examination centres - Further Subclause (xvii) of Section 21(1) gives ample
and all encompassing powers to the
Executive Council, the principal executive
body of the University, to regulate and
determine all matters concerning the
Institutes
including
affiliated
and
associated colleges etc - If mass copying
is reported at an examination center, it
becomes
the
statutory
duty
of
the
Examination Committee under Section 29
to debar the college from acting as an
examination center (Para 20, 21, 22 )

B. Civil Law - Administrative Law -
Government order - any Government
Order issued by the State Government has
to be read only in addition to the statutory
authority
or
power

vested
in
the
authorities of the University and not in
derogation
of
the
said
powers
and
authority available to the University under
the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 -
Court declined to accept the argument
that As per Government Order dated
03.01.2020,
it
is
only
the
State
Government,
which
possesses
the
authority to pass an order of debarring
and
not
the
University
authorities
9 All. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
693
including
the
Examination
Committee
(Para 30)

C. Civil Law - Natural Justice - Show Cause
notice - show cause notice issued to the
College to submit its reply in the matter
relating to mass copying, however it did
not make any mention of intended action
of the University to cancel the College
from being the Examination Centre - Held
- Examination Controller intimated the
College, to be present for personal hearing
in the matter relating to mass copying -
Although the specific intended action was
not explicitly stated, the court concluded
that,
considering
the
importance
of
maintaining the integrity of university
examinations, the proceedings following
the show cause notice were valid (Para
26)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
other service related benefits with effect from
the said date i.e. with effect from 19.07.2010
and not from any prior date.

25. Accordingly, in view of the
aforesaid discussions made, we modify the
judgment and order passed by learned Single
Judge dated 08.01.2020 passed in Writ
Petition No.5223 (S/S) of 2002 by providing
that respondent nos.1 and 2 shall be entitled
to payment of salary with effect from
19.07.2010 i.e. w.e.f. date the District
Inspector of Schools accorded his approval to
their appointment. They shall also be entitled
to all service benefits only w.e.f. 19.07.2010
and not with effect from any retrospective
date. The judgment and order dated
08.01.2020 passed by learned Single Judge is
modified to the aforesaid extent.

26. The special appeal is disposed of in
the aforesaid terms.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 692
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Special Appeal No.387 of 2022

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University
& Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Lalta Prasad Misra, Sri Atul Chander
Dwivedi, Sri Prafulla Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pt. S. Chandra, Sri Sanjay Kumar
Singh

A. Civil Law - U.P. State Universities Act,
1973 - Issue - Whether the University has
the statutory power to debar a college
from acting as an examination center -
Held - Section 29 (2) of the Act empowers
the Examination Committee to supervise
generally
all
examinations
of
the
University & perform various functions as
given in its sub-clauses (a) to (d),
however
functions
assigned
to
the
Examination Committee in Sub-clauses (a)
to (d) of Section 29 (2) of the Act are not
exhaustive - the word 'generally' in S. 29
(2) empowers the Examination Committee
to take all possible actions and steps
which are necessary and required for
supervising
all
examinations
of
the
University - S. 29 madates the University
to ensure fairness in the examinations at
the examination centres - Further Subclause (xvii) of Section 21(1) gives ample
and all encompassing powers to the
Executive Council, the principal executive
body of the University, to regulate and
determine all matters concerning the
Institutes
including
affiliated
and
associated colleges etc - If mass copying
is reported at an examination center, it
becomes
the
statutory
duty
of
the
Examination Committee under Section 29
to debar the college from acting as an
examination center (Para 20, 21, 22 )

B. Civil Law - Administrative Law -
Government order - any Government
Order issued by the State Government has
to be read only in addition to the statutory
authority
or
power

vested
in
the
authorities of the University and not in
derogation
of
the
said
powers
and
authority available to the University under
the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 -
Court declined to accept the argument
that As per Government Order dated
03.01.2020,
it
is
only
the
State
Government,
which
possesses
the
authority to pass an order of debarring
and
not
the
University
authorities
9 All. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
693
including
the
Examination
Committee
(Para 30)

C. Civil Law - Natural Justice - Show Cause
notice - show cause notice issued to the
College to submit its reply in the matter
relating to mass copying, however it did
not make any mention of intended action
of the University to cancel the College
from being the Examination Centre - Held
- Examination Controller intimated the
College, to be present for personal hearing
in the matter relating to mass copying -
Although the specific intended action was
not explicitly stated, the court concluded
that,
considering
the
importance
of
maintaining the integrity of university
examinations, the proceedings following
the show cause notice were valid (Para
26)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya, J.
&
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants, learned counsel representing the
State-respondents and Dr. Sanjay Kumar
Singh, learned counsel representing the
respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. This intra-court appeal challenges
the judgment and order dated 28.07.2022,
passed by the learned Single Judge in WritC No.122 of 2022, whereby the said writ
petition filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and
4 has been allowed and the order
challenged
therein,
dated
22.12.2021
whereby the College in question was
debarred from becoming the examination
center for the period of six years, has been
quashed.

3. Submission of learned counsel for
the appellants is that the learned Single
Judge while allowing the writ petition filed
by the College has not appropriately
construed to the provisions contained in the
Statute 10.04 of the First Statutes of Dr.
Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University,
Faizabad and as such the judgment and
order under appeal is not sustainable. It has
further been argued that the matter relating
to mass copying, as was alleged against the
College, was considered firstly by a SubCommittee
and
thereafter
by
the
Examination Committee and finally by the
Executive Council of the University and
hence the finding recorded by the learned
Single Judge that there is no specific
provision
either
in
the
U.P.
State
Universities Act or in the First Statutes
framed by the University to debar a college
from
acting
as
examination
center,
erroneous. It has further been stated on
behalf of the appellants that the finding
recorded by the learned Single Judge that
the decision of the University debarring the
College from acting as examination center
is without any statutory backing is also
erroneous in view of the provisions
contained in Section 21 of the U.P. State
Universities Act, read with Statute 10.04 of
the First Statutes of the University
concerned.

4. On the other hand, Dr. Sanjay
Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing
the College, while supporting the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single
Judge which is under appeal herein, has
argued that as a matter of fact the
University authorities did not have any
jurisdiction or power to debar the College
from acting as examination center in view
of the provisions contained in Government
Order dated 03.01.2020. It has further been
argued by him that there has been no
complaint, whatsoever, against the College
and that it has all along been functioning as
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an
examination
center
without
any
complaint from any corner. Dr. Singh has
also argued that the entire action which
ultimately resulted in debarring the College
from functioning as an examination center
has precipitated on account of malafide on
behalf of the University authorities for the
reason that in a certain matter the contempt
proceedings were instituted by the College
against the University authorities. Drawing
our attention to Clause 11 of the
Government Order dated 03.01.2020, it has
been argued by Dr. Singh that only those
colleges shall not be assigned to act as an
examination center where some report by
the officers regarding mass copying has
been sent which has necessitated reexamination of the students and where the
Examination
Committee
of
the
Government has taken a decision to debar.
Thus, the submission is that it is the State
Government which possesses the authority
to pass an order of debarring in terms of the
Government Order dated 03.01.2020 and
not the University authorities including the
Examination Committee. Submission is,
thus, that the Special Appeal is liable to be
dismissed at its threshold.

5. We have considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
representing the respective parties and have
also perused the record available before us on
this Special Appeal.

6. The College, in question, namely,
Maa Tilsera Devi P.G. College, Bhasra, Post
Office Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar is a
College affiliated to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia
Avadh University and is imparting education
upto
the
Post
Graduation
level.
On
13.08.2021 examination of B.A. III students
of Home Science Paper II was being held and
the University authorities came to know
certain irregularities relating to alleged mass
copying indulged in by the students and
accordingly a Press Release appears to have
been issued by the University on 24.09.2021
whereby it was pronounced that the College
has been debarred from functioning as an
examination center. The said Press Note
dated 24.09.2021 became the subject matter
of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition
No.26879(MS) of 2021 instituted by the
College. The Writ Petition was allowed and
the Press Release which was challenged in
the said writ petition was quashed. The
University authorities were directed to issued
a show cause notice and after giving
opportunity of hearing to the College, pass a
fresh order in accordance with law.

7. Pursuant to the said order dated
23.11.2021 passed by this Court, the
Examination Controller constituted a SubCommittee on 30.11.2021 comprised of 5
members which was chaired by the Professor
Rajiv Gaur, Head of the Department of
Microbiology in the University. The said
Sub-Committee was given instructions to
give opportunity of hearing to the College
and submit its report.

8. The meeting of the Sub-Committee
was convened to be held on 06.12.2021 and a
notice to the said effect was also issued by the
Examination Controller on 31.11.2021. The
College, in question, was also issued a show
cause notice on 30.11.2021 whereby the
College was required to appear before the
Sub-Committee as constituted above and
submit its reply in writing as well as orally in
the matter relating to mass copying reported
in the College concerned.

9. Pursuant to the said notice, the
meeting of Sub-Committee was held on
06.12.2021
wherein
apart
from
the
members of the Sub-Committee constituted
by
the
Examination
Controller
on
9 All. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
695
30.11.2021, the Principal of the College
was also present who appended his
signature on the attendance sheet after
stating therein that apart from written
submission made on behalf of the College,
he does not have anything to state either in
writing or orally. The written explanation
submitted by the Principal of the College to
the show cause notice, dated 06.12.2021 is
also on record at page 59 of the Special
Appeal whereby the Principal of the
College apologized for the mistakes found
and he further stated that College may be
pardoned. In the reply, it was further stated
that the allegation relating to use of unfair
means on the students may also be
cancelled and accordingly result of the
students may be declared.

10. Thus, from a perusal of the reply
given by the College through its Principal
before the Sub-Committee in its meeting
held on 06.12.2021, it is more than clear that
the allegation relating to mass copying on
the
examination
date,
namely,
on
13.08.2021 was rather admitted by the
College and it is on the basis of such
admission that the College requested the
Sub-Committee members to pardon the
College and after clearing the matter relating
to use of unfair means by the students, to
declare their result. The Sub-Committee
accordingly made a recommendation by
means of minutes of the meeting held on
06.12.2021 and clearly found that in the
College in question there has been mass
copying in the Home Science Paper II of
B.A. Part III examination held in the main
examination, 2021. The Committee also
opined that such mass copying is against the
academic environment of the University and
that such situation may be remedial so that
same may not have any adverse impact on
the future of the meritorious students of the
University.

11. When we peruse the minutes of
the meeting of the Sub-Committee, dated
06.12.2021, what we find is that the
Committee had not made the aforesaid
recommendations only on the basis of
admission of the irregularities which
occurred on the date of examination i.e. on
13.08.2021
by
the
College
but
the
Committee members also examined the
answer books of the students and found that
the seriatim of the answers written by the
students is the same in all the answer books
and the only difference is that the spellings
of certain words used by the students
appear to be at variance. The Committee,
however, also found that the students by
using wrongly spelt words have attempted
to convey the same meaning in their
respective answers.

12. Accordingly, it is clear that the
Committee's finding about indulgence in
mass copying is not based solely on the
admission of the College; rather it is also
based on the scrutiny of the material
available before the Committee objectively.

13. The recommendations of the said
Sub-Committee, dated 06.12.2021 were
placed before the Examination Committee
which a statutory body created under
Section 29 of the U.P. State Universities
Act. The said Examination Committee in
its meeting held on 13.12.2021 considered
the recommendations made by the SubCommittee and accordingly took a decision
to debar the College in the light of the
report available before it, for a period of 6
years. The decision of the Examination
Committee
was
placed
before
the
Executive Council of the University which
is the apex decision making body of the
University in terms of the provisions
contained in Section 21 of the U.P. State
Universities Act. The Executive Council
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
considered the entire matter in its meeting
held on 19.12.2021 and approved the
decision
taken
by
the
Examination
Committee for debarring the College in
question.

14. In the light of the aforesaid facts
and the legal position, when we examine
the judgment under appeal before us passed
by the learned Single Judge, what we find
is that primarily the learned Single Judge
has given two reasons for quashing the
decision of the University debarring the
College in question. The first reason given
by the learned Single Judge is that the
impugned decision lacks statutory frame
work conferring any authority or power
upon the University authorities under the
U.P. State Universities Act or the First
Statutes made thereunder to debar a
College
from
functioning
as
an
Examination Center. The second reason
indicated by the learned Single Judge is
that the show cause notice which preceded
the decision of the University which was
challenged in the writ petition did not make
clear as to for what purpose the show cause
notice was given, that is to say it did not
make any mention of intended action
against the College.

15. So far as the first reason given by
the learned Single Judge for allowing the
writ petition is concerned, we may first
refer to the provisions of Section 29 of the
U.P. State Universities Act. Section 29
provides that there shall be an Examination
Committee
in
the
University,
the
constitution of which shall be as may be
provided for in the Ordinances. Sub-section
(2) of Section 29 provides that the
Examination Committee shall supervise
generally all examinations of the University
and will have certain functions mentioned
therein. Sub-section (3) of Section 29
empowers the Examination Committee to
appoint sub-committees and further to
delegate one or more persons or subcommittees the power to deal with and
decide cases relating to use of unfair means
by the examinee. Sub-section (4) of Section
29 empowers the Examination Committee
or the Sub-committee to debar an examinee
from future examinations of the College
under certain conditions.

16. Quoting Sub-section (3) of
Section 29, learned Single Judge has
observed in the judgment and order under
appeal that the said provision only
empowers the Examination Committee to
take decision relating to use of unfair
means by the examinee. Learned Single
Judge has also referred to Statute 10.04 of
the First Statutes and has observed that
under the said provision, the Examination
Committee is empowered only to make any
place a center of written examination and
has thus observed that neither the Statute
10.04 nor Section 29 empowers the
Examination Committee to take any
decision in relation to debarment of
College to function as examination center.

17. When we examine Section 29 of
the Act, what we find is that the
Examination Committee is a statutory
Committee which is to be constituted in
accordance with the Ordinances. Subsection (2) of Section 29 is relevant to be
referred at this juncture. It provides that
Examination Committee shall supervise
generally
all
examinations
of
the
University. It further provides that it shall
supervise all the examinations including
moderation, tabulation and perform other
functions :

18.
 Section
29 of
the
State
Universities Act is quoted as under :
9 All. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
697

"29. Examinations Committee. -
(1) There shall be an Examinations
Committee
in
the
University,
the
constitution of which shall be as may be
provided for in the Ordinances.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (2) of Section 42, the Committee
shall supervise generally all examinations
of the University, including moderation
and tabulation, and perform the following
other functions, namely :

(a) to appoint examiners and
moderators and if necessary, to remove
them;

(b) to review from time to time
the results of University examinations and
submission of reports thereon to the
Academic Council;

c) to make recommendations to
the
Academic
Council
for
the
improvement of the examination system;

(d) to scrutinise the list of
examiners proposed by the Board of
Studies, finalise the same and declare the
result of the University.

(3) The Examinations Committee
may appoint such number of subcommittees as it thinks fit, and in
particular may delegate to any one or
more persons or sub-committees the
power to deal with and decided cases
relating to the use of unfair means by the
examinees.

[(4) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, it shall be lawful for
an Examinations Committee or, as the
case may be, for a sub-committee or any
person
to
whom
the
Examinations
Committee has delegated its power in this
behalf under subsection (3), to debar an
examinee from future examinations of the
University, if in its or his opinion, such
examinee is guilty of using unfair means at
any such examination.]

19. In our considered opinion, the
occurrence of word ''generally' in Sub-section
(2) of Section 29 empowers the Examination
Committee to take all possible actions and
steps which are necessary and required for
supervising
all
examinations
of
the
University. The affiliated colleges impart
education and they are affiliated to the
privileges of the University which gives such
Colleges a right to make their students appear
in the examinations to be conducted by the
University and it is only once the students are
declared
passed
in
the
examinations
conducted by the University that they are
conferred with Degrees. Accordingly for
conferment of the Degree since it is
incumbent on the students studying in the
affiliated Colleges to have passed the
examination, it becomes solemn duty of the
University to ensure that examinations are
conducted in the most fair manner, otherwise,
in case the University fails to conduct its
examinations in a fair manner, degrees being
conferred on the students will loose their
sanctity academically and even otherwise.

20. The functions assigned to the
Examination Committee in Sub-clauses (a) to
(d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the
Act cannot thus be held to be exhaustive.
Similarly the functions such as moderation
and tabulation occurring in Sub-section (2)
are also not exhaustive for the reason of
occurrence of word ''generally' in the said
provision.

21. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we are of the clear opinion that
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
setting up of an examination center for
ensuring
that
examinations
are
held
properly and in the most fair manner and
ensuring fairness in the examinations at the
examination centers are not only the
statutory duties cast upon the Examination
Committee under Section 29; rather the
said provision empowers the Examination
Committee to take all such steps which
shall ensure fair examinations. In a
situation where mass copying by the
students at the examination center is
reported and it is even admitted by none
other than the Principal of the College
himself, debarring such College from
functioning as an examination center for
future examinations becomes the statutory
duty cast on the Examination Committee
under Section 29 of the U.P. State
Universities Act.

22. For the reasons aforesaid, we are
of the opinion that it not only that the
Examination
Committee
is
statutorily
empowered to take such action as debarring
the
College
from
functioning
as
Examination Center under Section 29 but
taking such action in such a situation
becomes its statutory duty as well.

23. Apart from the above, we may
also refer to the provisions contained in
Section 21 of the U.P. State Universities
Act. Section 21 defines the powers and
duties of the Executive Council. The
opening phrase in Section 21 says that the
Executive Council shall be the principal
executive body of the University. It further
says that Executive Council shall have
certain powers mentioned in the said
provision subject to the provisions of the
Act. One of the powers listed in Section
21(1) is "to regulate and determine all
other matters concerning the University
as
well
as
Institutes,
constituent,
affiliated and associated colleges in
accordance with this Act, the Statutes
and the Ordinances". Thus, Sub-clause
(xvii) of Section 21(1) gives ample and all
en- compassing powers to the Executive
Council not only to regulate but to
determine as well all other matters
concerning
the
Institutes
including
affiliated and associated colleges etc.
Conduct of examination, as observed
above, by the University is a solemn act
and not only solemnity but also the fairness
has to be maintained by all measures by the
University for the purpose of saving the
University's reputation as body imparting
education and conferring degrees only to
deserving students.

24. In the instant case, the decision
taken by the Examination Committee was
discussed and accordingly approved by the
Executive Council in its meeting held on
19.12.2021 which, in our considered
opinion,
has
the
necessary
statutory
authority to take such decision in terms of
the provisions contained in Section 21(1)
(xvii) of the U.P. State Universities Act.

25. For the aforesaid reasons, we find
ourselves unable to agree with the finding
recorded by the learned Single Judge in the
judgment and order under appeal herein
that
the
decision
of
the
University
authorities to debar the College in question
from functioning as an examination center
is not backed by statutory authority.

26. So far as the other reason
indicated by the learned Single Judge that
the show cause notice did not indicate the
intended action of the University against
the College, is concerned, we may only
observe that in the earlier round of the
litigation, this Court has already noticed
that
the
College
was
debarred
and
9 All. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
699
accordingly Press Release was quashed by
means of judgment and order dated
23.11.2021 with the direction to the
University authorities to issue a show cause
notice and give opportunity to the College
and then pass fresh order. Even otherwise,
if we examine the show cause notice dated
30.11.2021, what we find is that the
Examination Controller has intimated the
College,
of
the
constitution
of
the
Committee and has also required the
College to be present for personal hearing
in the matter relating to mass copying.
Merely because the intended action was not
indicated in so many specific words, in our
considered opinion, in this particular case
where the sanctity of the university
examinations was at stake, it will not vitiate
the proceedings drawn consequent upon the
show cause notice dated 30.11.2021. Thus,
in this respect as well we are not able to
find ourselves in agreement with the
finding recorded by the learned Single
Judge.

27. So far as the allegation of
malafide etc. is concerned, once the
principal of the College appeared before
the Committee and clearly submitted that
College has nothing to say orally except
what has been stated in the written reply,
we do not find any force in such a
submission of learned counsel for the
College. The reason for our not accepting
the submission is that the Principal of the
College has neither orally nor in the written
reply, dated 06.12.2021 has anywhere
taken the plea of malafide and malice
against the University authorities and
accordingly, in absence of any plea taken
by the College in the said reply, such
submission cannot be accepted.

28. At this juncture, learned counsel
representing the College has stated that as a
matter of fact, the endorsement said to have
made by the Principal of the College on the
attendance sheet, dated 06.12.2021 was
made for the reason that the Committee
members had applied undue influence and
compelled the Principal of the College to
give something in writing as they wanted to
subside and resolve the matter.

29. We are afraid, we cannot agree
with the said submission as well, for the
simple reason that there is nothing on
record which can even remotely indicate
that the Principal of the College after
allegedly being coerced or influenced in the
meeting held on 06.12.2021 reported such
coercion to any authority either in the State
Government authority or in the University.
For the said reason, the submission made
by the learned counsel for the respondents
is rejected.

30. Learned counsel representing the
College has also relied upon Clause 11 of
the Government Order dated 03.01.2020. In
respect to the said submission, we are of
the
considered
opinion
that
any
Government Order issued by the State
Government has to be read only in addition
to the statutory authority or power vested in
the authorities of the University and not in
derogation of the said powers and authority
available to the University under the U.P.
State Universities Act, 1973.

31. For the reasons given and the
discussions made above, we conclude that
the judgment and order dated 28.07.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge is
erroneous and hence is not sustainable.

32. Resultantly, the Special Appeal is
allowed and judgment and order dated
28.07.2022, passed by the learned Single
Judge is hereby set aside. The Writ
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petition, namely, Writ-C No. 122 of 2022,
thus, stands dismissed.

33. There will be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 700
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7878 of 2022

Iqbal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Ajay Kumar Maurya, Sri H.N.
Shukla

Criminal Law- Constitution of India-
Article 226- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 154- First Information
Report-Indian
Penal
Code,
1860-
Sections 376, 354, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C.
and Dowry Prohibition Act- Section 3⁄4-
Quashing
of
F.I.R
on
basis
of
Compromise- Marital dispute has been
culminated
into
lodgement
of
the
impugned F.I.R. registered in aforesaid
case crime. The petitioners are alleged
to have committed the offence under
Sections 376, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C,
out of those five Sections, Sections 323,
504,
506
I.P.C.
are
compoundable.
Although,
Sections
354
read
with
Section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act are not compoundable
but
if
the
parties
wants
to
live
peacefully married life, the same does
not make a bar- criminal proceedings of
private nature can be quashed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the trial has
concluded in conviction, in case, if the
parties wants to resolve their dispute,
which is not of serious nature and the
dispute is not one, which is opposed to
public policy. The powers vested under
Article 226 of the Constitution are much
more than under Section 482 Cr.P.C and
therefore by exercising the said powers,
this Court can quashed the F.I.R- It is
inherent powers of the High Court, in
such matters that can be invoked where
the Court is satisfied that the parties
have willingly decided to bury their
dispute-
The
offence
stems
out
discordance, which is a reason for
lodging of the impugned F.I.R, but it is
shown that the respondent no.3/first
informant decided to give up the case
and therefore, as the offence under
Section
323,
504,
506
I.P.C.
are
compoundable, the same are permitted
as compounded. So far as the Sections
376, 354 I.P.C. is concerned, it cannot
be said that any offence is committed as
the victim has
not been medically
examined and also in view of the fact
that once the parties have decided that
they do not wish to contest the matter,
the F.I.R. ought to have be quashed.

Settled
law
that
where
the
criminal
prosecution arises out of a private or personal
dispute, including that arising out of marital
discord, the offences are not serious or grave,
are not opposed to public policy and the
parties have amicably decided to compromise
the matter, then under the exercise of it's
powers under Article 226 or under Section
482 of the Cr.Pc , the High Court can quash
the F.I.R / criminal proceedings even in noncompoundable offences. (Para 4, 6, 8)

Criminal Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. Jitendra Raghuvanshi & ors. Vs Babita
Raghuvanshi & anr.,(2013) 4 SCC 58

2. Rajendra Bhagat Vs St. of Jhar. @ Anr, 2022
Live Law (SC) 34