# Kanchan Sonkar Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 556
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-01
- **Case number:** Crl. Rev. No. 1266 of 2020
- **Bench:** Deepak Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kanchan-sonkar-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-45642
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 397/401 & Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 148, 149,
302, 34, 307 & Juvenile Justice(Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015-section
12-application-rejection-grant of bail to
juvenile-juvenile is entitled to the benefit of
the provisions of the Act-U/s 12 the prayer
for bail may be rejected if there appear
reasonable grounds for believing that the
release of the juvenile is likely to bring him
into the association with any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice-gravity of
the offence should not be taken as an
obstacle by the Legislature to refuse bail to
a delinquent juvenile-Hence, order passed
by the learned Court below cannot be
sustained-findings recorded by lower court
are in conflict with the settled principle in
law, for the purpose of grant of bail and
erroneous and contrary to the law.(Para 4 to
20)

B. Once a person is held to be a juvenile in
conflict with law, then Section 12 of the
Act would govern the question of grant of
bail and the custody of juvenile and it will not
be governed by the provisions of the code of
criminal procedure. It is important to note
that gravity or seriousness of the offence,
should not be taken as an obstacle or
hindrance by the Legislature to refuse bail to
a delinquent juvenile. (Para 9)

The Criminal Revision is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
trial Court concerned for hearing and
passing order afresh, at an earliest.
----------
(2020)12ILR A556
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

Crl. Rev. No. 1266 of 2020

Kanchan Sonkar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, Sri Shailendra Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 397/401 & Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 148, 149,
302, 34, 307 & Juvenile Justice(Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015-section
12-application-rejection-grant of bail to
juvenile-juvenile is entitled to the benefit of
the provisions of the Act-U/s 12 the prayer
for bail may be rejected if there appear
reasonable grounds for believing that the
release of the juvenile is likely to bring him
into the association with any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice-gravity of
the offence should not be taken as an
obstacle by the Legislature to refuse bail to
a delinquent juvenile-Hence, order passed
by the learned Court below cannot be
sustained-findings recorded by lower court
are in conflict with the settled principle in
law, for the purpose of grant of bail and
erroneous and contrary to the law.(Para 4 to
20)

B. Once a person is held to be a juvenile in
conflict with law, then Section 12 of the
Act would govern the question of grant of
bail and the custody of juvenile and it will not
be governed by the provisions of the code of
criminal procedure. It is important to note
that gravity or seriousness of the offence,
should not be taken as an obstacle or
hindrance by the Legislature to refuse bail to
a delinquent juvenile. (Para 9)

The Criminal Revision is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu Vs St. of U.P. (2010) 68
ACC 616 LB

2. Abdullah @ Abdul Hassan Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. (2015) 90 ACC 204

3. Maroof Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2015) 6 ADJ 203

4. Suraj @ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father Mahendra
Shukla Vs St. of U.P. & anr. Crl. Rev. No. 112 of 2015

5. Amit Kumar Vs St. of U.P. (2010) 71 ACC 209

6. Sanjay Chaurasia Vs St. of U.P. (2006) Cr.L.J.
2957

7. A. Juvenile Vs St. of Ori., (2009) Cr. L.J., 2002

8. Kamal Vs St. of Har. (2004) 13 SCC 526

9. Takht Singh Vs St of M.P., (2001) 10 SCC 463

10. Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.,(2018) 7 ADJ 864

11.
Japani
Sahoo
Vs
Chandra
Sekhar
Mohanty,(2007) 7 SCC 394

(Delivered by Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J.)

1. List revised. Despite service of
notice, none appears on behalf of the
opposite party no. 2 to oppose the present
criminal revision.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State
and
perused
the
record.
12 All. Kanchan Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
557

3. This revision is directed against the
judgment and order dated 08.06.2020
passed by Special Judge, (POCSO)-01,
Ghazipur, dismissing the Criminal Appeal
No.39 of 2020 (Kanchan Sonkar vs. State
of U.P.) under Section 53 of the the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act 2015 (for short 'the Act') and
affirming an order of Juvenile Justice
Board, Ghazipur dated 19.05.2020 refusing
the bail plea of the revisionist in Case
Crime No.603 of 2019 (State vs. Kanchan
Sonkar), under sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
34, 307 IPC, Police Station Kotwali,
District Ghazipur.

4. The fact of the present case is that
the informant lodged FIR against the
revisionist and seven other co-accused
persons alleging that revisionist and other
co-accused person had stabbed his son. The
averments made in the FIR is that on
08.10.2019 in the evening informant's son
namely Monu alongwith his friend and
some other boys of the village were going
to see the festival of Dushehra, in the way
at about 200 meter Phullanpur Railway
Crossing
near
Gyatri
Mandir,
the
revisionist and seven other co-accused
persons stabbed his son, due to which he
received serious injuries and he died.
Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist
submitted that as per marksheet, the
revisionist is aged about 15 years. He
further submitted that nothing on record to
show that revisionist will come in the
association of any known or unknown
criminal activities. He further submitted
that real mother Sheela Devi has full
control upon him and there is no chance of
any moral, psychological and physical
danger against the revisionist. Mother who
is real guardian of the minor having full
control over his son and she will not allow
him to come in the association of any
known or unknown criminal implicated
person. He further submitted that gravity of
offence cannot be looked on merit while
considering the bail of juvenile. The report
of the District Probation Officer (annexed
as annexure 4 to the revision) shows that
revisionist having no criminal record and in
total
observation,
revisionist
can
be
improved his mental criminal activities.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further
submitted that co-accused Vipin Pandey,
who is minor and named in the FIR, has
been enlarged on bail by the coordinate
Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision
No.1155
of
2020
vide
order
dated
23.09.2020 and co-accused Dinesh Bind
has been granted bail by this Court in
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.165 of
2020 vide order dated 21.01.2020.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist/applicant
submits
that
revisionist is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in concocted case; only gravity
of the offence is not relevant consideration
for refusing grant of bail to juvenile as has
been envisaged in Section 12 of the Act
and it has been consistent view of various
courts; the Board or the lower appellate
court has not given any reason or material
on record which shows that release of the
juvenile is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal or
expose
him
to
moral
physical
or
psychological danger, that his release
would defeat the ends of justice; there is no
criminal history of the applicant and there
is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;
the applicant has remained confined in the
child observation home for an unduly long
period of time, since 17.01.2020.

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently
opposed the present criminal revision. It is
submitted that the incident reported is true
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and it is wrong to say that the allegations
made against the applicant are false,
and/are motivated. Also, reliance has been
placed on the findings recorded in the bail
rejection orders to submit that the instant
revision may be dismissed.

7. It is not in dispute that the applicant
is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits
of the provisions of the Act. Under Section
12 of the Act, the prayer for bail of a
juvenile may be rejected 'if there appear
reasonable grounds for believing that the
release of the juvenile is likely to bring him
into association with any known criminal
or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice'.

8. The provisions relating to bail for a
juvenile are carried in Section 12 of the
Act, which reads as under:

"(1) When any person, who is
apparently a child and is alleged to have
committed a bailable or non-bailable
offence, is apprehended or detained by the
police or appears or brought before a
Board, such person shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any
other law for the time being in force, be
released on bail with or without surety or
placed under the supervision of a probation
officer or under the care of any fit person:

Provided that such person shall not be so
released if there appears reasonable grounds for
believing that the release is likely to bring that
person into association with any known criminal
or expose the said person to moral, physical or
psychological danger or the person's release
would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board
shall record the reasons for denying the bail and
circumstances that led to such a decision.

(2) When such person having been
apprehended is not released on bail under
subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of
the police station, such officer shall cause
the person to be kept only in an observation
home in such manner as may be prescribed
until the person can be brought before a
Board.

(3) When such person is not released
on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board,
it shall make an order sending him to an
observation home or a place of safety, as
the case may be, for such period during the
pendency of the inquiry regarding the
person, as may be specified in the order.

(4) When a child in conflict with law
is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail
order within seven days of the bail order,
such child shall be produced before the
Board for modification of the conditions of
bail."

9. The above provisions clearly show
that once a person is held to be a juvenile in
conflict with law, then Section 12 of the
Act would govern the question of grant of
bail and the custody of juvenile and it will
not be governed by the provisions of the
code of the criminal procedure. It is
important
to
note
that
gravity
or
seriousness of the offence, should not been
taken as an obstacle or hindrance by the
Legislature to refuse bail to a delinquent
juvenile. No straight jacket formula of
inflexible nature can be laid down as it
would depend on facts and circumstances
of each case. Words "ends of justice' is
confined to those facts which show that the
grant of bail itself is likely to result in
injustice.

10. The court has to see whether the
opinion of the learned appellate Court as
well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in
the impugned judgment and orders are in
12 All. Kanchan Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
559
consonance with the provision of the Act.
Section 12 of the Act lays down three
contingencies in which bail may be refused
to a juvenile offender. These are:-

(i) if the release is likely to bring him
into association with any known criminal,
or

(ii) expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger, or

(iii) that his release would defeat the
ends of justice?

11. Gravity of the offence has not
been mentioned as a ground to reject the
bail. It is not a relevant factor while
considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It
has been so held by this Court in the cases
of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of
U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB); Abdullah
@ Abdul Hassan Vs. State of U.P. and
Ohers [2015 (90) ACC 204]; Maroof Vs.
State of U.P. and Another [2015 (6) ADJ
203]; Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2015
(Suraj @ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father
Mahendra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and
Another) and Amit Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. 2010(71) ACC 209 decided on
02.07.2015.

12. The Act, namely, Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 being beneficiary and social reforms
oriented legislation, should be given full
effect by all concerned whenever matters
relating to juvenile comes for consideration
before them. There must be any material or
evidence reflecting reasonable ground to
believe that delinquent juvenile, if released
on bail is likely to fall into association with
known criminal persons or such liberty
may expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger, or his release would
defeat the ends of justice. In absence of
such reasonable grounds the bail of
juvenile should not be refused. In Sanjay
Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. 2006 Cr.L.J.
2957 it has been observed that:-

"10. In case of the refusal of the bail,
some reasonable grounds for believing
above-mentioned exceptions must be brought
before
the
Courts
concerned
by
the
prosecution but in the present case, no such
ground for believing any of the abovementioned exceptions has been brought by
the prosecution before the Juvenile Justice
Board and Appellate Court. The Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal only on the
presumption that due to commission of this
offence, the father and other relatives of other
kidnapped boy had developed enmity with the
revisionist, that is why in case of his release,
the physical and mental life of the revisionist
will be in danger and his release will defeat
the ends of justice but substantial to this
presumption no material has been brought
before the Appellate Court and the same has
not been discussed and only on the basis of
the presumption, Juvenile Justice Board has
refused the Bail of the revisionist which is in
the present case is unjustified and against the
spirit of the Act. It appears that the impugned
order dated 27.06.2005 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Meerut and order dated
28.05.2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board are illegal and set aside."

13. Learned Magistrate by its order
dated 19.05.2020 has rejected the bail of
revisionist mentioning that the offence
committed by juvenile is heinous and nonbailable in nature.

14. In the case of A. Juvenile Vs.
State of Orissa, 2009 Cr.L.J., 2002, it has
been held that:

"(6)
A
close
reading
of
the
aforementioned provision shows that it has
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been mandated upon the Court to release a
person who is apparently a juvenile on bail
with or without surety, howsoever heinous
the crime may be and whatever the legal or
other restrictions containing in the Cr.P.C.
or any other law may be. The only
restriction
is
that
if
there
appears
reasonable grounds for believing that his
release is likely to bring him into
association with any moral, physical or
psychological danger or his release would
defeat the ends of justice, he shall not be so
released."

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph 2 of the judgment in Kamal Vs.
State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 has
held thus:

"2. This is a case in which the
appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of
the India Penal Code and sentenced to
imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that
so far the appellant has undergone
imprisonment for about 2 years and four
months. The High Court declined to grant
bail pending disposal of the appeal before
it. We are of the view that the bail should
have been granted by the High Court,
especially having regard to the fact that the
appellant has already served a substantial
period
of
the
sentence.
In
the
circumstances, we direct that the bail be
granted to the appellant on conditions as
may be imposed by the District and
Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph-2 of the judgment in Takht
Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001
(10) SCC 463, has observed as under:-

"2.
The
appellants
have
been
convicted under Section 302/149, Indian
Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge
and have been sentenced to imprisonment
for life. Against the said conviction and
sentence their appeal to the High Court is
pending. Before the High Court application
for suspension of sentence and bail was
filed but the High Court rejected that
prayer
indicating
therein
that
the
applicants can renew their prayer for bail
after one year. After the expiry of one year
the second application was filed but the
same has been rejected by the impugned
order. It is submitted that the appellants
are already in jail for over 3 years and 3
months. There is no possibility of early
hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In
the aforesaid circumstances the applicants
be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

17. In the instant case, co-accused
Vipin Pandey & Dinesh Bind have been
granted bail by this Court. It does not
appear to bear any justification that the
revisionist may be denied his liberty by
testing his case with reference to the
disentitling condition mentioned in the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of
the Act. In the case of Dharmendra
(Juvenile) vs. State of U.P. and others,
[2018 (7) ADJ 864], the High Court was
pleased to observe as under:

"10. The matter can be looked at from
another vantage. In case the revisionist
were an adult and stood charged of the
offence that he faces with a weak
circumstantial evidence of last seen and
confession to the police, in all probability,
it would have entitled him to bail pending
trial. If on the kind of evidence forthcoming
an adult would be entitled to bail, denying
bail to a child in conflict with law may be
denying the juvenile/ child in conflict with
law
the
equal
protection
of
laws
12 All. Kanchan Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
561
guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution.

11. The rule in Section 12(1) of the Act
is in favour of bail always to a juvenile/
child in conflict with law except when the
case falls into one or the other categories
denial contemplated by the proviso. It is
not the rule about bail in Section 12 of the
Act that in case a child in conflict with law
is brought before the Board or Court, his
case is not to be seen on merits prima facie
about his complicity at all for the purpose
granting him bail; and all that has been
done is to see if his case falls is one or the
other exceptions, where he can be denied
bail. The rule in Section 12 sanctioning
bail universally to every child in conflict
with law presupposes that there is a prima
facie case against him in the assessment of
the Board or the Court based on the
evidence placed at that stage. It is where a
case against a child in conflict with law is
prima facie made out that the rule in
Section 12(1) of the Act that sanctions bail
as a rule, except the three categories
contemplated by the proviso comes into
play. It is certainly not the rule, and, in the
opinion of the Court cannot be so, that a
case on materials and evidence collected
not being made out against a child at all,
his case has to be tested on the three
parameters where bail may be denied
presuming that a prima facie case is
constructively there. Thus, it would always
have to be seen whether a case prima facie
on merits against a child in conflict with
law is there on the basis of material
produced by the prosecution against him. If
it is found that a prima facie case on the
basis
of
material
produced
by
the
prosecution is there that would have led to
a denial of a bail to an adult offender, in
that case also the Rule in Section 12(1) of
the Act mandates that bail is to be granted
to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law
except where his case falls into any of the
three disentitling categories contemplated
by the proviso.

12. In the opinion of this Court,
therefore, the perception that merits of the
case on the basis of prima facie evidence is
absolutely irrelevant to a juvenile's bail
plea under the Act would not be in
conformity with the law. The catena of
decisions that speak about merits of the
case or the charge against a juvenile being
irrelevant, proceed on facts and not an
assumption that a case on merits is made
out, and, not where the case is not at all
made out prima facie. It is not that a child
alleged to be in conflict with law against
whom there is not iota of evidence to
connect him to the crime would still have
bail denied to him because his case may be
placed
in
or
the
other
disentitling
categories under the proviso to Section
12(1) of the Act. If this kind of a
construction were to be adopted it might
expose the provisions of Section 12(1) of
the Act to challenge on ground of violating
the guarantee of equal protection of laws
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
It is an enduring principle that a
construction that lends a statute to
challenge about its constitutionality should
be eschewed and one that saves and
upholds its vires is to be adopted. In this
context the guidance of their Lordships of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Japani
Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty,
(2007) 7 SCC 394 may be referred to:-

"51. The matter can be looked at from
different angle also. Once it is accepted
(and there is no dispute about it) that it is
not within the domain of the complainant
or prosecuting agency to take cognizance
of an offence or to issue process and the
only thing the former can do is to file a
complaint or
initiate
proceedings
in
accordance with law. If that action of
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
initiation of proceedings has been taken
within the period of limitation, the
complainant is not responsible for any
delay on the part of the Court or
Magistrate in issuing process or taking
cognizance of an offence. Now, if he is
sought to be penalized because of the
omission, default or inaction on the part of
the Court or Magistrate, the provision of
law may have to be tested on the
touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It can possibly be urged that such a
provision is totally arbitrary, irrational and
unreasonable. It is settled law that a Court
of Law would interpret a provision which
would help sustaining the validity of law by
applying
the
doctrine
of
reasonable
construction
rather
than
making
it
vulnerable
and
unconstitutional
by
adopting rule of 'litera legis'. Connecting
the provision of limitation in Section 468 of
the Code with issuing of process or taking
of cognizance by the Court may make it
unsustainable and ultra vires Article 14 of
the Constitution."

18.

Thus,
it
remains
largely
undisputed that the applicant - was a
juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not
appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or
criminal psychology, in light of the
observations of the D.P.O; does not have a
criminal history; has been in confinement
for an unduly long period of time, in as
much as the trial has not concluded within
time frame contemplated by the Act. Even
otherwise, there does not appear to exist
any factor or circumstance mentioned in
section 12 of the Act as may disentitle the
applicant to grant of bail, at this stage.

19. In view of the above, it appears
that the findings recorded by the learned
Court below are in conflict with the settled
principle in law, for the purpose of grant of
bail and are erroneous and contrary to the
law laid down by this court. Consequently,
those orders cannot be sustained. The order
dated
08.06.2020
passed
by
Special
Judge(POCSO)-01,
Ghazipur,
and
the
dated 19.05.2020 passed by the Juvenile
Justice Board, Ghazipur are hereby set
aside.

20. In view of the observations made
above, the present criminal revision is
allowed.
Let
the
revisionist/applicant
Kanchan Sonkar involved in the aforesaid
case crime be released on bail through his
natural guardian/ mother, upon his mother
furnishing personal bond with two sureties
each of like amount, to the satisfaction of
the court concerned with the following
conditions:

(i) That the natural guardian will furnish
an undertaking that upon release on bail the
juvenile will not be permitted to come into
contact or association with any known
criminal or allowed to be exposed to any
moral, physical or psychological danger and
further that the father will ensure that the
juvenile will not repeat the offence.

(ii) The revisionist through his natural
guardian will report to the District
Probation Officer on the first Wednesday
of every calendar month commencing with
the first Wednesday of February, 2021 and
if during any calendar month the first
Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the
next following working day.

(iii) The District Probation Officer will
keep strict vigil on the activities of the
revisionist and regularly draw up his social
investigation
report
that
would
be
submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board,
Ghazipur on such periodical basis as the
Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

(iv) The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
12 All. Constable Vishram Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
563
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or the certified copy issued by
the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

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

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

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

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Crl. Rev. No. 1305 of 2006

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

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh

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

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

B. Certain offences, which bear civil
flavour, particularly relating to dowry and
family
dispute,
where
the
wrong
is
basically to victim and offender and victim
have settled the disputes between them
amicably, irrespective of the fact that such
offences
have
not
been
made
compoundable, the High Court may within
the framework of its inherent power,
quash the criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint or F.I.R. if it is satisfied that on
the face of such settlement, there is
hardly any likelihood of offender being
convicted
and
by
not
quashing
the
criminal proceedings, justice shall be
casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated.(Para 9 to 11)

The Revision is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri