# Dullu @ Mahoob & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 948
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-23
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 17997 of 2009
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dullu-mahoob-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50974
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376 & 506
- Application u/s 482 - for quashing the further
criminal proceedings - FIR - offence of rape -
charge-sheet - compromise - compromise was
verified by the trial court - applicant urged that,
applicant no. 1 and daughter of opposite party
No. 2 both are major and willingly got married -
victim
also
in
her
Statement
willingly
accompanied to applicant no. 1 and also
married without nay coercion, therefore case u/s
376 IPC is not made out - court finds that, both
applicant no.1 and victim are living as husband
and wife and out of their wedlock four children
have borne and fact of entering in compromise
which was duly verified by the trial court are not
1 All. Dullu @ Mahoob & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
949
disputed - held, even it the offence like rape,
cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise
but if from perusal of record, no case is made
out under section 376 IPC, even if the chargesheet is filed, - proceedings, on the basis of
compromise can be quashed - hence, in view of
the fact and legal position as well as law laid
down by the Apex court, the impugned
proceedings is hereby quashed - accordingly,
present Application is allowed. (Para - 8, 12)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons who misuse the judicial process
and keep on changing their stand to achieve
their objects, need to be punished after
proper investigation. Accordingly, the court
ordered registration of a case against the
applicant and some other persons, and
investigate the same.

25. It is correct that the Courts should
not normally make observations against
Judges, parties to litigation, advocates and
witnesses which may have an adverse
impact on their reputation or their future
prospects, but it is not that the Court cannot
make observations about the conduct of a
litigant or a witness even in an exceptional
case where the witness appears to have
acted as a director of the litigation and to
have abused the process of law. From the
facts of the case narrated above, the present
case appears to be an exceptional cases and
it appears that the trial Court has made the
observations
keeping
in
view
the
exceptional circumstances of the case
arising out of the conduct of the applicant.

26. Moreover, while making the
observations, the trial Court has not
recorded by conclusive finding and the
Court has merely directed that a case
should be registered against the applicant
and it should be investigated. Therefore,
the mere order of registration of a case and
investigation passed after detailed analysis
of the statements of the applicant and of his
conduct, appears not to be suffering from
any illegality warranting interference in
exercise of power of this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

27. Section 482 Cr.P.C. recognizes
the inherent powers of this Court to pass
orders necessary to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. It appears that the
learned
trial
Court
has
made
the
observations under challenge to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court and to
secure the ends of justice and no
interference
is
warranted
in
the
observations in exercise of this Court's
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

28. Accordingly, the application lacks
merit and the same is rejected.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 948
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 17997 of 2009

Dullu @ Mahoob & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Diwakar Shukla, Sri Abhishek Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Mohd. Asim Zulfikar

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376 & 506
- Application u/s 482 - for quashing the further
criminal proceedings - FIR - offence of rape -
charge-sheet - compromise - compromise was
verified by the trial court - applicant urged that,
applicant no. 1 and daughter of opposite party
No. 2 both are major and willingly got married -
victim
also
in
her
Statement
willingly
accompanied to applicant no. 1 and also
married without nay coercion, therefore case u/s
376 IPC is not made out - court finds that, both
applicant no.1 and victim are living as husband
and wife and out of their wedlock four children
have borne and fact of entering in compromise
which was duly verified by the trial court are not
1 All. Dullu @ Mahoob & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
949
disputed - held, even it the offence like rape,
cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise
but if from perusal of record, no case is made
out under section 376 IPC, even if the chargesheet is filed, - proceedings, on the basis of
compromise can be quashed - hence, in view of
the fact and legal position as well as law laid
down by the Apex court, the impugned
proceedings is hereby quashed - accordingly,
present Application is allowed. (Para - 8, 12)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Application U/S 482 No.41580 of 2022 (Fakre
Alam @ Shozil Alam Vs St. of U.P. and 3
others),

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

3. Narinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. &
anr.(2014) 6 SCC 477,

4. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC
1296,

5. St. of M.P. Vs Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC
1106.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Tripathi,
learned counsel for the applicants, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Sri Mohd. Asim
Zulfikar, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2.

2. The instant application has been
moved on behalf of the applicants to quash
the further proceedings of Case No.3503 of
2006 (State Vs. Dullu @ Mahboob and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.94 of
2006, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376
IPC,
Police
Station
Saini,
District
Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.

3. Contention of learned counsel for
the applicants is that as the applicant no.1 -
Dullu @ Mahboob and daughter of
opposite party no.2, both are major and
willingly got married. Victim - Farida has
stated in her statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. that she willingly accompanied to
applicant no.1 and also got married without
any coercion, therefore, case under Section
376 I.P.C. is not made out.

4. Further contention of learned
counsel for the applicants is that now the
applicant no.1 and the daughter of opposite
party no.2 are living as husband and wife
and out of their wedlock four children have
borne. Both the parties have entered into
compromise and they have also produced
written compromise.

5. This Court vide order dated
04.04.2023 directed to the parties to file
compromise deed before the court below
with further direction to the court below to
verify the same after summoning the
parties and send his report to this Court.

6. In pursuance of order dated
04.04.2023 of this Court, learned Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Kaushambi
has
verified the compromise and submitted its
report dated 08.05.2023 along with copy of
verified compromise.

7. The facts of entering into
compromise
and
applicant
no.1
and
opposite party no.2 are living as husband
and wife, are not disputed by learned
counsel for opposite party no.2.

8. Considering the fact that applicant
no.1 and daughter of opposite party no.2,
both are major and willingly married and
also on perusal of statement of victim
Farida, case under Section 376 I.P.C. is not
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made out. This Court in the case of
Application U/S 482 No.41580 of 2022
(Fakre Alam @ Shozil Alam Vs. State of
U.P. and 3 others) observed that even if
the offence like rape, cannot be quashed on
the basis of compromise but if from
perusal of record, no case is made out
under Section 376 I.P.C. even if the
charge sheet is filed under Section 376
I.P.C., the proceedings, on the basis of
compromise can be quashed.

9. The Apex Court in the case of
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab &
Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 observed in
paragraph no.61 as under:-

"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 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
1 All. Virat Pachauri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
951
 jurisdiction
to
quash
the
criminal
proceeding."

10. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi
Narayan observed in paragraph no.13.4
as under:-

"iv) offences under Section 307
IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in
the category of heinous and serious
offences and therefore are to be treated
as crime against the society and not
against
the
individual
alone,
and
therefore, the criminal proceedings for
the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or
the Arms Act etc. which have a serious
impact on the society cannot be quashed
in exercise of powers under Section 482
of the Code, on the ground that the
parties have resolved their entire dispute
amongst themselves. However, the High
Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed
under this provision. It would be open to
the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there
for the sake of it or the prosecution has
collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to framing the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose,
it would be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such
injury
is
inflicted
on
the
vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used etc. However, such an
exercise by the High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is
collected after investigation and the
charge sheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such exercise is
not permissible when the matter is still
under
investigation.
Therefore,
the
ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6
and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in
the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should
be read harmoniously and to be read as a
whole and in the circumstances stated
hereinabove;"

11. Therefore, in such peculiar facts
and circumstances, it would be unfair and
contrary to interest of justice to continue
with impugned criminal proceeding.

12. In view of the above facts and
legal position as well as law laid down by
the Apex Court in the judgment of Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another
(2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh &
Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another
(2014) 6 SCC 477 and State of M.P. Vs.
Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and
State of M.P. Vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017
SC 1106, the proceedings of Case No.3503
of 2006 (State Vs. Dullu @ Mahboob and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.94 of
2006, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376
IPC,
Police
Station
Saini,
District
Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, is hereby
quashed.

13. In view of the aforesaid
observations, the application is allowed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 951
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 20686 of 2023

Virat Pachauri & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties