# Kaleem & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 79
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-22
- **Case number:** CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.28758 of 2019
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kaleem-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44477
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Section 482 Cr.P.C. - quashing of
criminal proceedings - in Sexual Offence
/ Rape cases-solely on the basis of
compromise - Not permissible - as it is a
serious offence against the society and
same would embolden the perpetrators
of
such
crimes
and
encourage
commission of such offences.
Held: Sexual Offence constitute altogether
different class of crime and cannot be treated
at par with matrimonial offence, being a
dehumanizing act, unlawful intrusion of the
right of privacy and sanctity of a female,
offending her self-esteem and dignity. (Para
13)

B. Document that is not part of Case
Diary cannot be taken into consideration
by High Court while exercising inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C
Held: Appreciation of document, which is not
part of the case diary is a function of the trial
court at the appropriate stage. Its genuineness
cannot be adjudicated and compromise cannot
be taken into consideration by High Court u/s
482 CrPC. (Para 14 & 15)

Victim Raped by brother-in-law/'Jija' of the
husband on nuptial night - Quashing of the
charge-sheet, cognizance order under Sections
376, 504, 506 IPC and 3⁄4 D.P. Act - on ground of
alleged compromise - Refused. It was not a
simple case of matrimonial dispute, but
aggravated form of cruelty, because bride
(victim) was forcibly raped by Jija of her
husband and thereafter by her husband on her
first night of marriage in barbarian manner in
her matrimonial home on account of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. Court refused
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to let off the accused on the basis of alleged
compromise. (Para 15, 16)

Application dismissed.

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

1 All. Kaleem & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
79
Mau was pronounced vide order dated
30.07.2017 in favour of the accused
persons by acquitting them, therefore,
after pronouncement of the judgement in
the case the aforesaid S.T. No. 196 of
2010 became functus officio and could
not be reopened afresh as contemplated
under section 319 (4) Cr.P.C., as referred
to above.

36. Therefore, there is a practical
embargo because now S.T. No. 196 of
2010 (State v. Sanny and another) is not
itself existing and the entire exercise
being conducted under section 319
Cr.P.C. by the learned trial Judge would
yield no result rather it would be a sore in
the eyes of law.

37. Thus, assessing over all fact and
circumstances of the case and comparing
the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court
in the cases of Hardeep Singh (Supra),
Sugreev Kumar (Supra), Periyasami and
Ors. (Supra) and Brijendra Singh (Supra),
this Court has got no hesitation in quashing
the order dated dated 24.08.2013 passed by
Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Mau
passed in S.T. No. 196 of 2010 (State v.
Sanny and another), under sections 363,
366, 376, 373, 372 IPC and 3,4,5,6 and 7 of
the ITP Act, P.S. Mau, District Mau.

38. The present application filed
under section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly,
allowed
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.28758 of
2019
(u/s -482 Cr. P.C.)

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Atul Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Section 482 Cr.P.C. - quashing of
criminal proceedings - in Sexual Offence
/ Rape cases-solely on the basis of
compromise - Not permissible - as it is a
serious offence against the society and
same would embolden the perpetrators
of
such
crimes
and
encourage
commission of such offences.
Held: Sexual Offence constitute altogether
different class of crime and cannot be treated
at par with matrimonial offence, being a
dehumanizing act, unlawful intrusion of the
right of privacy and sanctity of a female,
offending her self-esteem and dignity. (Para
13)

B. Document that is not part of Case
Diary cannot be taken into consideration
by High Court while exercising inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C
Held: Appreciation of document, which is not
part of the case diary is a function of the trial
court at the appropriate stage. Its genuineness
cannot be adjudicated and compromise cannot
be taken into consideration by High Court u/s
482 CrPC. (Para 14 & 15)

Victim Raped by brother-in-law/'Jija' of the
husband on nuptial night - Quashing of the
charge-sheet, cognizance order under Sections
376, 504, 506 IPC and 3⁄4 D.P. Act - on ground of
alleged compromise - Refused. It was not a
simple case of matrimonial dispute, but
aggravated form of cruelty, because bride
(victim) was forcibly raped by Jija of her
husband and thereafter by her husband on her
first night of marriage in barbarian manner in
her matrimonial home on account of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. Court refused
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to let off the accused on the basis of alleged
compromise. (Para 15, 16)

Application dismissed.

List of Cases Cited:-
1. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan
and others AIR 2019 SC 1296 followed

2. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and others AIR 2019 SC
327

3. Asha and another Vs. State of U.P. and
another 2018 (6) ADJ 45

4. Vineet Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P.
and another 2017 (13) SCC 369 (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble SanjayKumar Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned
counsel for the applicants and Sri
Virendra
Kumar
Maurya,
learned
Additional Government Advocate assisted
by Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned
Brief holder for the State/opposite party
no.1. Perused the record with the
assistance of learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The applicants have preferred this
application
for
invoking
inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of
this Court to quash the impugned chargesheet dated 19.05.2019 arising out of case
crime no. 0065 of 2019, cognizance order
dated 01.07.2019 and proceedings of Case
No. 1247/9 of 2019 (State Vs. Kaleem
and others), under Sections 376, 504, 506
IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act against the applicant
no.4 and under Sections 504, 506 IPC and
3/4 D.P. Act against the applicant nos. 1
to 3, Police Station Meerapur, District
Muzaffar
Nagar
pending
before
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.3, Muzaffar Nagar.

3. Filtering out unnecessary details,
basic facts of the case in brief are that the
applicant no.1 (Kaleem) is husband,
applicant no.2 (Mobeen) is father-in-law,
applicant no.3 (Smt. Sayada @ Bhoori) is
mother-in-law of victim Sabnam. On
10.03.2019, Mohd. Iqbal (brother of
victim) lodged First Information Report
regarding an incident dated 6.3.2019
against the accused-applicants registered
as Case Crime No. 0065 of 2019, under
Sections 376D, 506, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P.
Act at Police Station Meerapur, District
Muzaffar Nagar alleging inter-alia that
marriage of his younger sister (victim
Sabnam) was solemnized on 06.03.2019
with the applicant no.1. In the marriage,
about a sum of Rs. seven lakh were spent
by his family members, but the accusedapplicants were not satisfied and started
demanding rupees fifty thousand in cash
and one Alto Car at the time of marriage.
Anyhow,
"bidai"
ceremony
was
performed and Sabnam was sent to her
matrimonial house, but on the nuptial
night (first night of marriage) the accusedapplicants entered into the room of victim
Sabnam and started taunting/abusing for
not fulfilment of their demand of dowry
by her family members. On resisting by
the victim Sabnam, they in abrasive tone
threatened to see her. Thereafter, Daood
(brother-in-law/Jija of the husband of
victim) forcibly committed rape on victim
in the first night of her marriage and
therewith Kaleem (husband) following
Daood also committed rape on victim. It
is further alleged that after the aforesaid
atrocities, she became unconscious. On
the next day in morning, brother of victim
received an information from unknown
person that his sister in not well. On such
information, informant (brother of the
victim)
alongwith
his
other
family
members reached at the matrimonial
1 All. Kaleem & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
81
house of the victim and she was brought
to VashisthaHospital situated in Almaspur
Chaupala, Muzaffar Nagar in a bad
condition for her treatment. Seeing the
crowed collected at the hospital, the
accused persons ran away. Victim on
gaining consciousness also told that her
mother-in-law with intention to kill her
choked her neck from Dupatta.

4. The applicants have filed the
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of
the informant (brother of the victim), in
which he has reiterated the version of the
FIR. Victim Sabnam in her statements
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also supported
the prosecution case making allegations
as mentioned in the FIR. Statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. of victim is being
reproduced herein-below:-

"c;ku 164 lhvkjihlh ihfMrk 'kcue iRuh
dyhe fu0 fdFkkSM+k Fkkuk ehjkiqj eq0uxj o iq=h QS ̧;kt fu0
248 dsoyiqjh Fkkuk flfoy ykbu eqt¶Qjuxj mez 27 o"kZ
}kjk l'kiFk C;ku fd;k fd esjh 'kknh fnukad 06-03-2019 dks
dyhe ds lkFk gqbZ Fkh 'kknh esa esjs ekrk firk us djhc 7 yk[k
:i;s [kpZ fd;s FksA ijUrq dyhe mlds firk eksfcu mldh ek
lk;nk o cguksbZ nkÅn 'kknh esa fn;s x;s lkeku ls [kq'k ugha
Fks vkSj fonkbZ ds VkbZe 50 gtkj :i;s udn o xkM+h dh ekax
djus yxsA esjs ?kj okyksa us cgqr le>k;k] ;g yksx eq>s fonk
djds ys x;sA tc eSa llqjky igqaph jkr dks esjs ifr] lkl]
llqj o uUnksbZ esjs dejs esa ?kql vk;s vkrs gh bu yksxks us eq>s
ngst dk rkuk ekjk esjh lk;nk xys esa nqiV~Vk Mkydj ekjus
dk iz;kl fd;k esjs lkl] llqj dejs ds ckgj pys x;sA esjs
uUnksbZ nkÅn us esjs gkFk cka/k fn;s igys nkÅn us esjs lkFk
cykRdkj fd;k fQj dyhe us cykRdkj fd;k x;kA eS csgks'k
gks x;h esjs ?kjokyks us bu yksxksa dks QkSu fd;k ij bu yksxks
us mBk;k ughA blfy;s esjs ?kjokys nwljs fnu llqjky igqap
x;s vkSj esjh gkyr ns[kdj eq>s gkfLiVy ys x;sA esjk tsoj]
diM+k lc lkeku llqjky esa gh gS eS viuh ethZ ls c;ku ns
jgh gwaA lqudj rLnhd fd;kA izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;g
o;ku ihfM+rk ds 'kCnks esa esjs }kjk Loa; vafdr fd;k x;k gSA
ACJ (SD) 2 e/kq xqIrk fnukad 02-04-2019 eqt¶Qjuxja "

5. On 15.03.2019, victim Sabnam was
medically examined, where her statement
was also recorded by the doctor concerned.
The brief statement of the victim as
mentioned in the column of "description of
incident in the words of narrator" in the
medical examination report dated 15.03.2019
is reproduced herein-below:-

" 'kknh dh jkr dks igys llqj ,oa lkl
vk;s ftUgksus ngst ds fy, MkVk rFkk mlds ckn
vkneh ,oa uUnksbZ us tojnLrh djus dh dksf'k'k
djds cykRdkj fd;k tojnLrh nksuks gkFk cka/k fn,
FksA mlds ckn bls [kwu tkus yxk rFkk izkbosV
MkDVj ds ;gkW HkrhZ djds Vkads yxok;s"

6. The Investigating Officer after
investigation submitted charge-sheet dated
19.0.2019 against the accused Daood under
Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4
of Dowry Prohibition Act and against
remaining other co-accused under Sections
504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act mentioning that since
accused Kaleem is husband of victim,
therefore, rape committed by him, as per
prosecution case will not come under the
category of rape, on which, the Magistrate
concerned took cognizance on 01.07.2019.

7. Record indicates that in the
present case, earlier the victim was
impleaded as opposite party no.2, but later
before filing this application her name
was scored out as opposite party no.2 by
pen and mentioned as applicant no.5.
Alongwith application, a joint affidavit of
accused-applicant
no.1
Kaleem
and
victim Sabnam has been filed and in the
said affidavit the name of victim has find
place as opposite party no.2.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the applicants that:-

(i) The applicants have been
falsely implicated.
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii) The allegations levelled
against the accused-applicants in the FIR
as well as in the statements of informant
and victim are false and concocted.

(iii) The statement of the victim
under
Section
164
Cr.P.C.
dated
02.04.2019 was recorded under the
influence of her family members.

(iv) Now, the dispute between
the parties concerned has amicably settled
outside the Court and compromise deed
dated 9.7.2019 has also been prepared.
The affidavit of victim Sabnam and said
compromise deed dated 9.7.2019 have
been appended as Annexure No.6 to the
application.

(v)It is also submitted that the
applicant no.1 and victim is living
together as husband and wife, therefore,
the impugned charge-sheet and entire
aforesaid impugned criminal proceedings
against the applicants are liable to be
quashed.

(vi) Learned counsel for the
applicants in support of his submissions
placed
reliance
on
the
following
judgments:-

(a) Asha and another Vs. State
of U.P. and another 2018 (6) ADJ 45.

(b) Vineet Kumar and others
Vs. State of U.P. and another 2017 (13)
SCC 369.

(c) Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar
Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others AIR 2019 SC 327.

9. Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocate has vehemently
opposed the prayer of the applicants and
refuting the submissions of learned
counsel for the applicants submitted that:-

(i) The offence under Section
376 IPC is a serious offence against the
society, therefore, the parties cannot be
permitted to make compromise being
non-compoundable offence.

(ii) It is also submitted that the
alleged compromise deed dated 9.7.2019
has been prepared after submission of
charge-sheet dated 19.05.2019 against the
accused persons.

(iii)
The
said
affidavit
of
compromise deed dated 9.7.2019 are not part
of the case diary, therefore, the same cannot be
taken into consideration at this stage.

(iv) It is also submitted that
since the incident took place on the first
night of marriage of the victim, therefore,
it cannot be said that the accused persons
have been falsely implicated.

(v) It is vehemently urged that
since it is not a simple case of matrimonial
dispute, but a serious matter where victim
has been raped by her brother-in-law (Jija of
husband of the victim) on wedding night of
her marriage as per allegations levelled by
the victim in the present case, therefore, by
saying that it is a matrimonial dispute, the
applicant no.4 (Daood) cannot be let off at
this stage from the offence committed by
him
only
on
the
basis
of
alleged
compromise. As such the present application
is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

(vi)
Learned
Additional
Government Advocate in support of his
submissions placed reliance on the
judgment of Apex Court in case of State
of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan
and others AIR 2019 SC 1296.

10.

After
having
heard
the
arguments of learned counsel for the
parties concerned, before delving into the
1 All. Kaleem & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
83
matter, it is apposite to deal the judgments
cited on behalf of the parties.

Firstly,
I
shall
deal
the
judgments relied upon on behalf of the
applicants.

(a) In the matter of Asha and
another Vs. State of U.P. and another
2018 (6) ADJ 45, the facts of the case
was that father of the victim lodged FIR
that accused Anand Kumar has enticed
away her daughter aged about 15 years.
After investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against accused Anand Kumar
under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3⁄4
POCSO Act. Criminal Misc. Application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved by
the victim and accused on the ground that
they are husband and wife and victim is
residing with her husband. Father of the
victim has lodged the false and fabricated
FIR, because victim on her own free will
and volition went in the company of
accused. The victim after running away
from her house married with accused at
Arya Samaj Mandir. The Investigating
Officer in an arbitrary manner without
doing fair investigation submitted chargesheet. On the said facts that before
lodging First Information Report, parties
have already married with consent of each
other and they are major. They are living
peacefully as husband and wife, the High
Court took a view that offence of rape or
kidnapping or abduction has not been
committed at all, therefore, criminal
proceedings was quashed.

(b) In the matter of Vineet
Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and
another 2017 (13) SCC 369, the facts of
the case was that accused has made
several transactions with the complainant,
her husband and son in the month of May,
2015. Accused gave Rs. 9 lakh to the
husband and son of the complainant for
business purpose and agreement dated
29.05.2015 was signed by the husband of
the complainant and one of the accused
acknowledging the payment of Rs. 6 lakh
60 thousand in cash and Rs. 2 lakh 40
thousand by cheque. Another agreement
between the complainant and one of the
accused was entered into on 01.06.2015
wherein
it
was
acknowledged
that
complainant and her husband had taken
Rs. 7 lakh 50 thousand in cash from the
accused. Third agreement was entered
into between the son of complainant and
one of the accused on 31.08.2015 wherein
son of complainant acknowledged that his
parents have taken an amount of Rs. 14 lakh
50 thousand. Complainant and her husband
gave cheque of Rs. 6 lakh 50 thousand to the
accused for recovery of amount given by the
accused. Later on, one of the accused filed
complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act against husband and son of
the complainant. Thereafter, on 30.10.2015
complainant filed an application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against all three
accused alleging commission of offence
under section 376(d), 323 and 452 IPC.
During investigation, complainant refused to
her internal examination and husband also
denied for medical examination of his wife,
as much time had been elapsed. The
Investigating Officer after investigation
submitted final report as the allegations were
found false. The police also submitted report
for initiating the proceedings under section
182 Cr.P.C. against the complainant. The
complainant moved protest petition, which
was allowed by the Magistrate concerned on
28.05.2016. On the said facts an Application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred
before the High Court, which was allowed
setting aside the order dated 28.05.2016
directing the Magistrate to pass fresh order.
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Magistrate again vide order dated
03.08.2016 summoned the accused. Revision
was filed before the Session Judge against
the order dated 03.08.2016, which was
dismissed vide order dated 22.10.2016.
Accused again filed an Application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated
03.08.2016, which was refused by the High
Court. Aggrieved by the order of the High
Court, accused approached the Apex Court
by filing S.L.P., which has been allowed
and criminal proceedings against the
accused was quashed in the light of
guideline laid down under the category
no.7 as innumerated in case of State of
Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and
others 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 considering
that criminal proceedings is manifestly
attended with mala fide and proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge.

(c) In the matter of Dr.
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others
AIR 2019 SC 327, the facts of the case
was that FIR was
registered on
06.12.2000 against accused-appellant
under Sections 376(2)(b), 420 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST Act. In the said case, accusedappellant was serving as a medical
officer in the PrimaryHealthCenter and
complainant was working as Assistant
Nurse in the same health center. Both
accused and complainant on account of
having love affair started residing
together. They were in relationship
with each other and they resided some
time at her house and some time at the
house of the appellant. When the
complainant
came
to
know
that
accused-appellant has married with
some other women, then she lodged
complaint. The Apex Court on the said
fact has held that there is clear
distinction
between
rape
and
consensual sex. It was also held that if
the allegations made in complaint are
taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety, they do not make out a
case of rape against accused-appellant,
therefore, complaint registered under
Section 376(2)(b) cannot be sustained.
On the said observation, charge-sheet
dated 14.06.2001 filed in the said case
was quashed by the Apex Court.

Now Court proceed to deal with
the
judgment
relied
upon
by
the
prosecution.

(a) Three judge Bench of the
Apex Court recently on 5.3.2019 in the
matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Laxmi Narayan and others AIR 2019
SC 1296 has ruled that the criminal
proceedings for the offence of "rape"
cannot be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise made between the victim and
offender. The guideline laid down by the
Apex Court in para 13 of the said
judgment is reproduced herein-below:-

"13. Considering the law on the
point and the other decisions of this Court
on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is
observed and held as under:

i) that the power conferred
under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the criminal proceedings for the noncompoundable offences under Section 320
of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the
civil character, particularly those arising
out of commercial transactions or arising
out of matrimonial relationship or family
1 All. Kaleem & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
85
disputes and when the parties have
resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;

ii) such power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involved heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious
impact on society;

iii) similarly, such power is not
to be exercised for the offences under the
special
statutes
like
Prevention
of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender;

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
amongstthemselves.
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;

v) while exercising the power
under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the criminal proceedings in respect of
non-compoundable offences, which are
private in nature and do not have a
serious impart on society, on the ground
that there is a settlement/compromise
between the victim and the offender, the
High Court is required to consider the
antecedents of the accused; the conduct of
the accused, namely, whether the accused
was absconding and why he was
absconding, how he had managed with
the
complainant
to
enter
into
a
compromise etc."

11. In view of aforesaid discussions,
it is apparent that the judgments relied
upon on behalf of the accused-applicants
are not helpful to the applicants as the
aforesaid cases are distinguishable on the
facts, as such the same are not applicable
in the present case. Here it is apposite to
mention that even one additional or
different fact may make big difference
between the conclusions in two cases and
blindly placing reliance on a decision is
never proper. It is trite law that each case
depends on its own facts and a close
similarity between one case and another is
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not enough because even a single
significant detail may alter the entire
aspect. Every case has to be decided on its
own facts and no hard and fast rule can be
laid down as regards the cases, which
deserve quashing by the High Court in
exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. If, considering the
special facts of a case, the court decides to
quash the charge-sheet on the basis of
compromise in a particular case, that ipso
facto does not justify quashing of the
charge-sheet in every other case involving
the commission of an offence punishable
under the same provision of law or with
equal or even lesser punishment. The
nature of the offence than in fact is more
important than the punishment prescribed
for it.

12. In Bodhi Sattwa Gautam Vs.
Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC
922,
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
observed, inter alia, as under:-

"Unfortunately, a woman, in our
country, belongs to a class or group of society
who are in a disadvantaged position on
account of several social barriers and
impediments and have, therefore, been the
victim of tyranny at the hands of men with
whom
they,
fortunately,
under
the
Constitution enjoy equal status. Women also
have the right to life and liberty; they also
have the right to be respected and treated as
equal citizens. Their honour and dignity
cannot be touched or violated. They also have
the right to lead an honourable and peaceful
life.

Women, in them, have many
personalities combined. They are mother,
daughter, sister and wife and not play
things for centre spreads in various
magazines, periodicals or newspapers nor
can they be exploited for obscene
purposes. They must have the liberty, the
freedom and, of course, independence to
live the roles assigned to them by nature
so that the society may flourish as they
alone have the talents and capacity to
shape the destiny and character of men
anywhere and in every part of the world.

Rape is thus not only a crime
against the person of a woman (victim), it
is a crime against the entire society. It
destroys the entire psychology of a
woman and pushes her into deep
emotional crisis. It is only by her sheer
will-power that she rehabilitates herself
in the society which, on coming to know
of the rape, looks down upon her in
derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore,
the most hated crime. It is a crime against
basic human rights and is also violative of
the victim's most cherished of the
Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to
Life contained in Article 21. To many
feminists and psychiatrists, rape is less a
sexual offence than an act of aggression
aimed at degrading and humiliating
women.
The
rape
laws
do
not,
unfortunately, take care of the social
aspect of the matter and are inept in many
respects."

13. Sexual offences constitute an
altogether different class of crime which
is the result of a perverse mind. By their
very nature these crimes cannot be treated
at par with matrimonial offence. Sexual
violence apart from being a dehumanizing
act is an unlawful intrusion of the right of
privacy and sanctity of a female and is a
serious blow to her supreme honor
offending her self-esteem and dignity.
Allowing
quashing
of
charge-sheet,
pursuant to a compromise, will, in such
cases, only embolden the perpetrators of
1 All. Kaleem & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
87
such crimes, which otherwise are on the
increase, in society. If the accused in such
a case is an affluent person and the
prosecutrix comes from a socially or
economically weaker strata of the society,
quashing in such a case would only
encourage commission of such offences,
as the accused, using his money power or
otherwise, may be able to induce the
prosecutrix/victim
to
enter
in
to
settlement with him and then seek
quashing of criminal proceedings, on the
strength of that settlement.

14. The present case, in hand, is not
a simple case of matrimonial dispute, but
it is aggravated form of cruelty, because
as per the prosecution case bride (victim)
has been forcibly raped by Jija of her
husband and thereafter by her husband on
her first night of marriage in barbarian
manner in her matrimonial home on
account of non fulfillment of demand of
dowry, which is a serious offence, which
suffocate the breath of life and sully the
reputation of the victim. The rape is noncompoundable offence and it is an offence
against the society, therefore, it is not a
matter to be left for the parties to make
compromise and settle the issue outside
the Court. Though except the offence
under Section 376 I.P.C. other sections of
I.P.C. are compoundable, but it is not
necessary that in all such cases, the
consent
given
by
the
victim
for
compromising the case is a genuine
consent. Possibility of giving consent
under compelling circumstances against
the wishes of the victim cannot be ruled
out. There is every possibility that victim
might have been pressurized by the
accused persons by different means
compelling her to opt for a compromise.
The Court cannot always be assured that
the consent given by the victim is a
genuine consent. The act and conduct of
the accused-applicants in the present case
are against the civilized norms. Such
offences have serious impact on society
and are distinct from other matrimonial
offences, where parties have resolved
their dispute and because of compromise
between
the
victim
and
offender,
possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak. Genuineness of the compromise,
which is not a part of the case diary or the
prosecution case, cannot be adjudicated at
this stage in the present application,
which cannot be more appropriately gone
into by the trial court at the appropriate
stage.

15. In the light of above discussion
and after elaborate and wholesome
treatment of the issues as laid down by the
Apex Court recently in case of Laxmi
Narain (supra), I do not find any merit in
the present application. The relief as
sought by the accused-applicants cannot be
granted under the facts and circumstances
of the case. This Court is of the view that it
is well settled that the appreciation of any
foreign document, which is not part of the
case diary is a function of the trial court at
the appropriate stage. It is also settled by
the Apex Court in catena of judgments that
the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at
pre-trial stage should not be used in a
routine manner, but it has to be used
sparingly, only in such a appropriate cases,
where uncontroverted allegations made in
FIR or charge-sheet and the evidence
relied in support of same do not disclose
the commission of any offence against the
accused. Genuineness or otherwise of the
allegation cannot be even determined at
this pre-trial stage.

16. In view of above, the impugned
criminal proceeding under the facts of this
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case cannot be said to be abuse of the process
of the Court. There is no good ground to
invoke inherent power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. by this Court. Hence, criminal
proceedings against the applicants is not
liable to be quashed. As a fallout and
consequence of above discussion, the relief
as sought by the applicants through this
application is refused.

17. The instant application lacks
merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

18.

Office
is
directed
to
communicate this order to the concerned
court below within two weeks.
--------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH J.

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 27720 of 2019
(u/s - 482 Cr. P.C.)

Alok Jaiswal & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Manvendra Nath Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Mainsh Jaiswal.

A. Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Matrimonial
dispute - opposite party no. 2 who is the
wife of the applicant lodged an FIR u/s
498A, 323, 308, 342, 504, 506, 406
Indian Penal Code and 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition
Act,
1961-settlement
between parties- applicant adhered to
the condition of the term and condition
of the settlement - no useful purpose to
allow criminal prosecution- application
allowed in terms of compromise.
Chronological list of Cases Cited: -
1. (1988) 1 SCC 692 Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia
and
others
Vs.
Sambhaji-rao
Chandrojirao Angre and others

2. (2003) 4 SCC 675 B. S. Joshi and others Vs.
State of Haryana and another

3. (1977) 2 SCC 699 State of Karnataka Vs. L.
Muniswamy

4. AIR 2004 SC 261 Smt. Swati Verma Vs.
Rajan Verma and others

5. (2017) 9 SCC 641 Parbatbhai Aahir @
Oarbatbhai Vs. State of Gujrat

6. AIR 2019 SC 1296 State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (E-10)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manvendra Nath Singh,
learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Birendra
Kumar
Singh,
learned
Additional Government Advocate assisted
by Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned
Brief holder for the State/opposite party
no.1 and Sri Manish Jaiswal, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 and
perused the record with the assistance of
learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants with a prayer to quash the
charge-sheet no. 34 of 2018 dated
23.07.2018 arising out of Case Crime No.
0005 of 2017 as well as cognizance order
dated 05.04.2019 and proceedings of case
no.8333 of 2018 (State Vs. Alok Jaiswal
and others), under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act,
Police Station Mahila Thana, District -
Allahabad pending in the court of 18th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Allahabad.