# Gaurav Kumar Agrahari @ Gaurav Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 519
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-30
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 7188 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gaurav-kumar-agrahari-gaurav-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47745
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506 - principles with
regard to exercise of powers under Section
482
Cr.P.C.
-
in
case
of
compromise/settlement between parties -
test to be applied - whether uncontroverted
allegation as made prima facie establishes
the offence and the chances of ultimate
conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing criminal
proceedings to be continue - quashing of the
criminal proceedings is an exception than a
rule. (Para -10 )

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - three circumstances under which
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i)
to give effect an order under the Code, (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of the court
; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
(Para -10)

Application filed - to quash - entire proceeding,
charge sheet and summoning order - applicant
filed compromise deed - verified compromise in
presence of applicant and opposite party no. 2 .
(Para - 3)

HELD:-Offence are more particularly a private
dispute. Entire proceedings quashed. (Para -
11,12 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

10 All. Gaurav Kumar Agrahari @ Gaurav Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
519
available to the court. Thereafter the
statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of the
witnesses were also available before the
court. He has discussed the statements of
the
complainant
supported
by
the
statements of the witnesses under Section
202 Cr.P.C. and therefore the part of
inquiry is complete. It cannot be said that
he has not made inquiry. While issuing the
process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., he has
discussed the evidences of the complainant
supported by the witnesses, thus he has not
committed any error.

23. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, I am of the opinion that the
order passed by the court below needs no
interference.
The
application
is
consequently dismissed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 519
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 7188 of 2022

Gaurav Kumar Agrahari @ Gaurav Kumar
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sameer Singh, Sri Sakshi Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506 - principles with
regard to exercise of powers under Section
482
Cr.P.C.
-
in
case
of
compromise/settlement between parties -
test to be applied - whether uncontroverted
allegation as made prima facie establishes
the offence and the chances of ultimate
conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing criminal
proceedings to be continue - quashing of the
criminal proceedings is an exception than a
rule. (Para -10 )

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - three circumstances under which
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i)
to give effect an order under the Code, (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of the court
; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
(Para -10)

Application filed - to quash - entire proceeding,
charge sheet and summoning order - applicant
filed compromise deed - verified compromise in
presence of applicant and opposite party no. 2 .
(Para - 3)

HELD:-Offence are more particularly a private
dispute. Entire proceedings quashed. (Para -
11,12 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-
1. B.S. Joshi Vs St. of Haryana & ors., 2003 (4)
ACC 675

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

3. Dimpey Gujral & ors. Vs Union Territory
Through Administrator, 2013 (11) SCC 697

4. Narendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. & ors..,
2014 (6) SCC 466

5. Yogendra Yadav & ors.. Vs St. of Jharkhand,
2014 (9) SCC 653

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

7. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Punj., AIR 1960 S.C.
866
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)426

9. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192

10. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr., 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.

11. S.W. Palankattkar & ors. Vs St. of Bihar,
2002 (44) ACC 168

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Shri Mohd. Imran Khan, Advocate,
has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite
party No. 2, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Sameer Singh, the
learned counsel for applicant, Dr. Gyan
Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State as
well as Shri Mohd. Imran Khan, the learned
counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and
perused the record.

3. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to
quash the entire proceeding of Case Crime
No. 0050 of 2020, under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mahila
Thana, District Lucknow as well as charge
sheet dated 25.02.2021 and summoning
order dated 01.11.2021 passed by learned
Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C. Court No. 50,
District Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that in compliance of the order
dated 19.09.2022 passed by a coordinate
Bench of this Court in Application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6426 of 2022, the
applicant filed compromise deed dated
09.09.2022 before the court of learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial
Magisytrate, F.T.C., Lucknow and the
concerned court vide its order dated
27.09.2022 verified the said compromise in
presence of the applicant and opposite
party no. 2, copy of which is annexed as
Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support
of the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite
party No. 2 submits that his client is not
interested to contest the case.

6. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that
since parties have entered into compromise,
which has also been verified by the court
below, therefore, no useful purpose would
be served if the proceedings of the
aforesaid case go on further.

7. Learned counsel for the parties has
drawn attention of this Court and placed
reliance on the following judgments of
Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their
case.

(i) B.S. Joshi Vs. State of
Haryana & Others 2003 (4) ACC 675.

(ii) Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303.

(iii) Dimpey Gujral And Others
Vs.
Union
Territory
Through
Administrator 2013 (11) SCC 697.

(iv)
Narendra
Singh
And
Others Vs. State of Punjab And Others
2014 (6) SCC 466.

(v) Yogendra Yadav And Others
Vs. State of Jharkhand 2014 (9) SCC
653.

8. Summarizing the ratio of all the
above cases the latest judgment pronounced
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Parbatbhai
Aahir
@
Parbatbhai
10 All. Gaurav Kumar Agrahari @ Gaurav Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
521
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of
Gujarat & Anr,; reported in (2017) 9 SCC
641 and in paragraph no.16, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has summarized the broad
principles with regard to exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of
compromise/settlement between the parties
which emerges from precedent of the
subjects as follows:-

i. "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.

ii.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.

iii. 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;

iv. 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;

v. 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;

vi. 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;

vii. 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;

viii. Criminal cases involving
offences which arises 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;

ix. In such a case, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceeding if in
view of the compromise between the
522 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

x. There is yet an exception to the
principle set out in propositions (viii) and
(ix) above. Economic offences involving
the financial and economic well-being 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."

9. The Apex Court has also laid down
the
guidelines
where
the
criminal
proceedings
could
be
interfered
and
quashed in exercise of its power by the
High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P.
Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960
S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State
of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and
another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.

10. From the aforesaid decisions the
Apex Court has settled the legal position
for quashing of the proceedings at the
initial stage. The test to be applied by the
court
is
to
whether
uncontroverted
allegation as made prima facie establishes
the offence and the chances of ultimate
conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing criminal
proceedings to be continue. In S.W.
Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar,
2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the
criminal proceedings is an exception than a
rule. The inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages
three circumstances under which the
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i)
to give effect an order under the Code, (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of the court
; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice. The power of High Court is very
wide
but
should be
exercised
very
cautiously to do real and substantial justice
for which the court alone exists.

11. With the assistance of the
aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the
nature and gravity and the severity of the
offence which are more particularly is
private dispute and differences it is deem
proper and meet to the ends of justice. The
proceeding of the aforementioned case be
quashed.

12.

The
present
482
Cr.P.C.
application stands allowed. Keeping in
view the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the above referred judgment
and in view of the statement/compromise
made by the applicant as well as opposite
party no.2 and the observation made above,
the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.
0050 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mahila
Thana, District Lucknow, are hereby
quashed.

13. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

14. The concerned Court/Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
10 All. Om Prakash Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
523
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 523
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.10.2022

BEFORE

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

Application U/S 482 No. 7213 of 2022

Om Prakash Maurya ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sukh Deo Singh, Sri Paritosh Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 227 - Discharge
, Section 482 - Inherent power - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 324,
504, 506, 308, 304 - At the stage of
framing charge , only prima facie case is
to be seen, whether case is beyond
reasonable doubt is not to be seen - Court
has to see if there is sufficient ground for
presuming
that
the
accused
has
committed an offence. (Para - 10)

F.I.R. lodged by first informant/opposite party
no.2 - against three accused persons including
present applicant - injured died due to head
injuries - Section 302 I.P.C. added - applicant
named in F.I.R. - all accused persons assigned
role of assaulting injured by lathi, danda and
knife - discharge application moved by applicant
- rejected by Session judge.(Para -8)

HELD:- At this stage, only prima facie
availability of material warranting framing of
charge against the applicant is enough . No
roving enquiry is required to ascertain veracity
or otherwise of the prosecution's case. No
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
under challenge. No abuse of court's process.
(Para -12,13 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-
1. St. of Maha. Vs Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996
SC 1744

2. Rajbir Singh Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2006 SC
1963

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. In view of the order proposed to be
passed, notice to the opposite party no.2 is
dispensed with.

3. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
29.08.2022 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-7, Sultanpur, whereby the
application of the applicant under Section
227 Cr.P.C. bearing No.8Kha has been
rejected in Sessions Trial No.707/2021
"State vs. Om Prakash Maurya and others"
in F.I.R. No.424 of 2020, under Sections
323, 324, 504, 506, 308, 304 I.P.C., Police
Station Jamo, District Amethi.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the applicant that false first information
report came to be lodged against the
applicant inter alia stating therein that he
along with other accused persons assaulted
the injured person and thereafter they fled
away from the spot. His further submission
is that in fact, due to some injuries in his
leg, the applicant was operated and a steel