# Mohit Soni v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1097
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-05
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 31175 of 2017
- **Bench:** Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohit-soni-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50931
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 493, 376, 504 & 506 - Charge
Sheet
-
Quashing
of
-
Counsel
for
applicant submits that after exchange of
pleadings, opposite party no.2 filed joint
compromise affidavit before Trial Court,
and her counsel does not dispute this fact
- In compromise, opposite party no.2
declared she does not wish to pursue case
as she is now married to someone else
and
settled,
and
continuation
of
prosecution would only cause harassment
- Further submitted as per FIR itself,
applicant and opposite party no.2 were in
live-in relationship for over six years, and
following disputes arising when marriage
did not materialize, present prosecution
initiated by opposite party no.2 - Held,
where Court finds that alleged heinous
offence is not made out on facts, and
parties amicably settled their disputes,
leaving only remote and bleak chances of
conviction, continuation of proceedings
would result in oppression and prejudice
to both sides - In such circumstances,
proceedings may be quashed u/s 482
Cr.P.C. on basis of compromise - FIR and
St.ments u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. reveal
no element of deception at inception,
relationship was consensual with family
approval - Promise of marriage not false
from beginning, but owing to subsequent
developments, applicant declined to marry
- Facts indicate failed live-in relationship
rather than commission of offence - No
offence u/s 376 IPC made out against
applicant - Opposite party no.2, being an
adult, was aware no marriage had taken
place - Relationship was consensual,
voluntary and known to both families - No
inducement or lack of consent disclosed -
Hence, no case u/s 493 IPC is made out -
Impugned order, quashed. (Para 3, 14,
23)

Application disposed of. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,878 of 58,886. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39878 for what follows._

3 All. Mohit Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1097
not dispute that the cheque was issued in
the name of the said Raj Rajeshwari
Enterprises and the said cheque was
dishonoured and demand notice was issued
by the opposite party no.2, he has failed to
comply with the said notice. Therefore, in
view of the presumption under Section 139
of the N.I. Act and as per the law laid down
by the Apex Court, this Court does not find
any good ground to interfere in the instant
case in exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

17.

Accordingly,
the
instant
application is devoid of merit and is hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1097
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 31175 of 2017

Mohit Soni ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ... Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashok Gupta, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh,
Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, Sri Viresh
Mishra, Sri Aakash Kishan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Rajiv Dwivedi, Sri Satya Prakash
Maurya, Sri Shashi Kumar Verma, Sri C.P.
Awasthi

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 493, 376, 504 & 506 - Charge
Sheet
-
Quashing
of
-
Counsel
for
applicant submits that after exchange of
pleadings, opposite party no.2 filed joint
compromise affidavit before Trial Court,
and her counsel does not dispute this fact
- In compromise, opposite party no.2
declared she does not wish to pursue case
as she is now married to someone else
and
settled,
and
continuation
of
prosecution would only cause harassment
- Further submitted as per FIR itself,
applicant and opposite party no.2 were in
live-in relationship for over six years, and
following disputes arising when marriage
did not materialize, present prosecution
initiated by opposite party no.2 - Held,
where Court finds that alleged heinous
offence is not made out on facts, and
parties amicably settled their disputes,
leaving only remote and bleak chances of
conviction, continuation of proceedings
would result in oppression and prejudice
to both sides - In such circumstances,
proceedings may be quashed u/s 482
Cr.P.C. on basis of compromise - FIR and
St.ments u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. reveal
no element of deception at inception,
relationship was consensual with family
approval - Promise of marriage not false
from beginning, but owing to subsequent
developments, applicant declined to marry
- Facts indicate failed live-in relationship
rather than commission of offence - No
offence u/s 376 IPC made out against
applicant - Opposite party no.2, being an
adult, was aware no marriage had taken
place - Relationship was consensual,
voluntary and known to both families - No
inducement or lack of consent disclosed -
Hence, no case u/s 493 IPC is made out -
Impugned order, quashed. (Para 3, 14,
23)

Application disposed of. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jiyaullah Vs St. of U.P. & anr., Application u/s
482 No. 5419 of 2021

2. Kapil Gupta Vs St. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.,
Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2022, dated
10.08.2022

3. Shiji Vs Radhika : (2011) 10 SCC 705, (Paras
17 to 19)
1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr. : (2012) 10
SCC 303, (Paras 52 to 58, 61)

5. Narinder Singh & ors..Vs St. of Punj. : (2014)
6 SCC 466, (Paras 29.1 to 29.7)

6. Prabatbhai Aahir @ Prabatbhai Bhimsinghbhai
Karmur & ors..Vs St. of Gujarat & anr. : (2017)
9 SCC 641, (Paras 16, 16.1 to 16.10)

7. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs St. of
Maharashtra : (2019) 18 SCC 191, (Paras 8, 13,
24)

8. St. of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa [St. of
Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89
: 2002 SCC (Cri) 539], (Para 6)

9. Vineet Kumar Vs St. of U.P. [Vineet Kumar v.
St. of U.P., (2017) 13 SCC 369 : (2017) 4 SCC
(Cri) 633], (Para 41)

10. Shambhu Kharwar Vs St. of U.P. : 2022 SCC
Online SC 1032, (Paras 8 to 10)

11. St. of HP Vs Mango Ram : (2000) 7 SCC 224

12. Jiyaullah Vs St. of U.P. & anr., Application u/
482 No. 5419 of 2021, (Paras 14, 15, 17, 18)

13. Kapil Gupta Vs St. of NCT of Delhi &
Another, Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2022, SLP
(CRL.) No. 5806 of 2022, dated 10.08.2022,
(Paras 16, 17)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Aakash Kishan, Advocate
holding brief of Sri Ashok Gupta, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri C.P. Awasthi,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Shashi
Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 and Sri Prem Prakash
Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
quashing of the Charge Sheet No. 114/17
dated 20.06.2017 in Case No. 3056/IX of
2017 (State vs. Mohit Soni), arising out of
Case Crime No. 201 of 2017 u/S 493, 376,
504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Rajapur, District-
Chitrakoot, pending in the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that in the instant case, after the
pleadings were exchanged, the opposite
party no.2 has filed a joint affidavit in the
form of compromise before the learned
Trial Court, which has been taken on
record by the learned Trial Court and
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
does not dispute the said fact. In the said
compromise, the opposite party no.2 has
stated that she does not wish to prosecute
her case against the the applicant herein as
she has already married to someone else
and is settled in her life and the instant
prosecution
would
cause
further
harassment to her. In addition to the same,
learned counsel for the applicant further
submits from the plain allegations made in
the F.I.R., the applicant and opposite party
no.2 were in physical relationship or rather
were in live- in relationship with each other
for more than six years and due to some
dispute later on between the parties, when
the applicant herein could not marry the
opposite party no.2, the instant prosecution
has been lodged by the opposite party no.2
herein against the applicant herein.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further relied upon the judgement of
this Court dated 15.09.2023 in Application
u/S 482 No. 5419 of 2021 (Jiyaullah vs.
State of U.P. and Another), wherein it has
been held that where the consensual
physical relationship between the parties
was a longstanding relationship with the
consent of their parents, then, no offence
u/S 376 of I.P.C. shall be made out.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further relied upon the judgement of the
3 All. Mohit Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1099
Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1217
of 2022 (Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCT of
Delhi & Anr.) dated 10.08.2022. Learned
counsel for the applicant submits that when
the complainant herself is not supporting
the prosecution case and has applied for
withdrawing the prosecution of the accused
persons, then, it will end nothing else but
an acquittal, therefore, it will be futile to
keep the prosecution pending in the courts,
which
are
already
humongously
overburdened.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 do not dispute the fact of
compromise between the parties. It is
further stated by learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 that the opposite party
no.2 has already married to someone else
and is living happily, therefore, the
pendency of the criminal case will be
further harassment to the new matrimonial
life of the opposite party no.2. In view
thereof, she wants the instant proceedings
to be quashed.

7. In view of the compromise between
the parties and the nature of relationship
between the parties, learned counsel for the
State do not object to quashing of the
instant proceedings on the basis of the
compromise between the parties.

8. Having heard the learned counsels
for the parties, this Court has carefully
perused the records of the case and on
perusal of the records, the following
questions arises for determination of this
Court:

I) Whether while exercising the
power u/S 482 Cr.P.C., this Court can
quash
the
proceedings
in
noncompoundable cases involving heinous
crimes like rape etc., on the basis of
compromise between the parties?

II)Whether if all the allegations
as alleged by the opposite party no.2 in the
F.I.R. and in her statements u/S 161 and
164 of Cr.P.C., and believed to be true on
its face value, whether the offence u/S 376
& 493 I.P.C. and other offences against the
applicant are constituted?

III) whether in view of the
developments and the present status of the
parties and in view of the compromise
between the applicant and the opposite
party no.2, what are the chances of
conviction of the applicant and whether the
pendency of the prosecution against the
applicant could cause oppression and
harassment of the applicant as well as that
of the opposite party no2? and

IV) Whether in a case where an
offence of heinous crime like rape is
alleged and on given facts, prima facie the
offences is not constituted and the parties in
view of the further developments in the
status of the parties and the victim has
already moved ahead in life and in view of
such developments, the prosecutrix has
entered into a compromise with the
applicant and did not wish to prosecute the
case
any
further
against
the
applicant/accused, it will not be a duty of
the courts while exercising u/S 482 Cr.P.C.,
to quash such proceedings to secure ends of
justice?

9. Question No. 'I'- To find the
necessary answers of these questions, it
will be relevant to note the few decisions of
the Apex Court. In Shiji vs. Radhika:
(2011) 10 SCC 705, the Apex Court held as
under:

"17. It is manifest that simply
because an offence is not compoundable
under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no
reason for the High Court to refuse
exercise of its power under Section 482
1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
CrPC. That power can in our opinion be
exercised in cases where there is no
chance of recording a conviction against
the accused and the entire exercise of a
trial is destined to be an exercise in
futility. There is a subtle distinction
between compounding of offences by the
parties before the trial court or in appeal
on the one hand and the exercise of power
by the High Court to quash the prosecution
under Section 482 CrPC on the other.
While a court trying an accused or hearing
an appeal against conviction, may not be
competent to permit compounding of an
offence based on a settlement arrived at
between the parties in cases where the
offences are not compoundable under
Section 320, the High Court may quash
the prosecution even in cases where the
offences with which the accused stand
charged are non-compoundable. The
inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 CrPC are not for that purpose
controlled by Section 320 CrPC.

18. Having said so, we must
hasten to add that the plenitude of the
power under Section 482 CrPC by itself,
makes it obligatory for the High Court to
exercise the same with utmost care and
caution. The width and the nature of the
power itself demands that its exercise is
sparing and only in cases where the High
Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the
clear view that continuance of the
prosecution would be nothing but an
abuse of the process of law. It is neither
necessary nor proper for us to enumerate
the situations in which the exercise of
power under Section 482 may be justified.
All that we need to say is that the exercise
of power must be for securing the ends of
justice and only in cases where refusal to
exercise that power may result in the
abuse of the process of law. The High
Court may be justified in declining
interference if it is called upon to
apaslipreciate evidence for it cannot
assume the role of an appellate court while
dealing with a petition under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to
the above, the High Court will have to
consider the facts and circumstances of
each case to determine whether it is a fit
case in which the inherent powers may be
invoked.

19. Coming to the case at hand,
we are of the view that the incident in
question had its genesis in a dispute
relating to the access to the two plots which
are adjacent to each other. It was not a
case of broad daylight robbery for gain. It
was a case which has its origin in the civil
dispute between the parties, which dispute
has, it appears, been resolved by them.
That being so, continuance of the
prosecution where the complainant is not
ready to support the allegations which are
now described by her as arising out of
some
"misunderstanding
and
misconception" will be a futile exercise
that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy
that the two alleged eyewitnesses, who are
closely related to the complainant, are also
no longer supportive of the prosecution
version.
The
continuance
of
the
proceedings is thus nothing but an empty
formality. Section 482 CrPC could, in such
circumstances, be justifiably invoked by
the High Court to prevent abuse of the
process of law and thereby preventing a
wasteful exercise by the courts below."

10. Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure saves the inherent
power of the High Court and it reads as
under:

"482. Saving of inherent powers
of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall
be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
3 All. Mohit Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1101
powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

11. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab
and Another : (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Full
Bench of the High Court has observed as
under:

"52. The question is with regard
to the inherent power of the High Court in
quashing the criminal proceedings against
an offender who has settled his dispute
with the victim of the crime but the crime
in which he is allegedly involved is not
compoundable under Section 320 of the
Code.

53. Section 482 of the Code, as its
very language suggests, saves the inherent
power of the High Court which it has by
virtue of it being a superior court to
prevent abuse of the process of any court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It
begins with the words, "nothing in this
Code" which means that the provision is
an overriding provision. These words
leave no manner of doubt that none of the
provisions of the Code limits or restricts
the inherent power. The guideline for
exercise of such power is provided in
Section 482 itself i.e. to prevent abuse of
the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. As has been
repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers
no new powers on the High Court; it
merely safeguards existing inherent powers
possessed by the High Court necessary to
prevent abuse of the process of any court
or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally
well settled that the power is not to be
resorted to if there is specific provision in
the Code for the redress of the grievance
of an aggrieved party. It should be
exercised very sparingly and it should not
be exercised as against the express bar of
law engrafted in any other provision of the
Code.

54. In different situations, the
inherent power may be exercised in
different ways to achieve its ultimate
objective. Formation of opinion by the
High Court before it exercises inherent
power under Section 482 on either of the
twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the
process of any court, or (ii) to secure the
ends of justice, is a sine qua non.

55. In the very nature of its
constitution, it is the judicial obligation of
the High Court to undo a wrong in course
of administration of justice or to prevent
continuation
of
unnecessary
judicial
process. This is founded on the legal maxim
quando
lex
aliquid
alicui
concedit,
conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non
potest. The full import of which is whenever
anything is authorised, and especially if, as
a matter of duty, required to be done by
law, it is found impossible to do that thing
unless something else not authorised in
express terms be also done, may also be
done, then that something else will be
supplied by necessary intendment. Ex
debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise;
the whole idea is to do real, complete and
substantial justice for which it exists. The
power possessed by the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code is of wide
amplitude but requires exercise with great
caution and circumspection.

56. It needs no emphasis that
exercise of inherent power by the High
Court would entirely depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. It is
neither permissible nor proper for the court
to provide a straitjacket formula regulating
the exercise of inherent powers under
Section 482. No precise and inflexible
guidelines can also be provided.
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

57. Quashing of offence or
criminal proceedings on the ground of
settlement between an offender and victim
is not the same thing as compounding of
offence. They are different and not
interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the
power of compounding of offences given to
a court under Section 320 is materially
different from the quashing of criminal
proceedings by the High Court in exercise
of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding
of offences, power of a criminal court is
circumscribed by the provisions contained
in Section 320 and the court is guided
solely and squarely thereby while, on the
other hand, the formation of opinion by
the High Court for quashing a criminal
offence
or
criminal
proceeding
or
criminal complaint is guided by the
material on record as to whether the ends
of justice would justify such exercise of
power although the ultimate consequence
may
be
acquittal
or
dismissal
of
indictment.

58.
Where
the
High
Court
quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that the dispute between
the offender and the victim has been settled
although
the
offences
are
not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will
be an exercise in futility and justice in the
case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end and peace is
restored; securing the ends of justice
being the ultimate guiding factor. No
doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful
effect on the public and consist in
wrongdoing that seriously endangers and
threatens the well-being of the society and
it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only
because he and the victim have settled the
dispute amicably or that the victim has
been paid compensation, yet certain crimes
have been made compoundable in law, with
or without the permission of the court. In
respect of serious offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of
mental depravity under IPC or offences of
moral turpitude under special statutes, like
the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity, the
settlement between the offender and the
victim can have no legal sanction at all.
However,
certain
offences
which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear
civil flavour having arisen out of civil,
mercantile,
commercial,
financial,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences
arising
out
of
matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the
family dispute, where the wrong is
basically to the victim and the offender
and the victim have settled all 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 FIR if it is satisfied that on the
face of such settlement, there is hardly any
likelihood of the offender being convicted
and
by
not
quashing
the
criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and
ends of justice shall be defeated. The above
list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each
case will depend on its own facts and no
hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.

61. 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
3 All. Mohit Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1103
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 FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the 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
a
serious
impact
on
society.
Similarly, any compromise between the
victim and the offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like the
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
a 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, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceedings if in
its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and the victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of the criminal
case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that the criminal case is put to
an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction
to quash the criminal proceeding."

12. In Narinder Singh & Ors. vs.
State of Punjab : (2014) 6 SCC 466, this
Court has laid down the following
principles by which the High Court would
be guided in giving adequate treatment to
the settlement between the parties in
exercising its power u/S 482 of the Code
while
accepting
the
settlement
and
quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement at its discretion with
direction to continue with the criminal
proceedings:

"29.1. Power conferred under
Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in
the Court to compound the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under
Section 482 of the Code, the High Court
has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are
not compoundable, where the parties have
settled the matter between themselves.
However, this power is to be exercised
sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have
reached the settlement and on that basis
1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition
for
quashing
the
criminal
proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in
such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any court.

While exercising the power the
High Court is to form an opinion on either
of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involve 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. Similarly, for the offences
alleged to have been committed under
special statute like the 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.

29.4. On the other hand, those
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character, particularly
those
arising
out
of
commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes should be
quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers,
the High Court is to examine as to whether
the possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression
and prejudice and extreme injustice would
be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307
IPC would fall in the category of heinous
and serious offences and therefore are to
be generally treated as crime against the
society and not against the individual
alone. 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
proving 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/delicate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used, etc. Medical
report in respect of injuries suffered by the
victim can generally be the guiding factor.
On the basis of this prima facie analysis,
the High Court can examine as to whether
there is a strong possibility of conviction or
the chances of conviction are remote and
bleak. In the former case it can refuse to
accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the latter
case it would be permissible for the High
Court to accept the plea compounding the
offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court
can also be swayed by the fact that the
settlement between the parties is going to
result in harmony between them which may
improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to
exercise its power under Section 482 of the
Code or not, timings of settlement play a
crucial role. Those cases where the
settlement is arrived at immediately after
the alleged commission of offence and the
matter is still under investigation, the High
Court may be liberal in accepting the
settlement
to
quash
the
criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of
the
reason
that
at
this
stage
the
investigation is still on and even the
charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise,
those cases where the charge is framed
3 All. Mohit Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1105
but the evidence is yet to start or the
evidence is still at infancy stage, the High
Court can show benevolence in exercising
its powers favourably, but after prima
facie
assessment
of
the
circumstances/material mentioned above.
On the other hand, where the prosecution
evidence is almost complete or after the
conclusion of the evidence the matter is at
the stage of argument, normally the High
Court should refrain from exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code, as
in such cases the trial court would be in a
position to decide the case finally on merits
and to come to a conclusion as to whether
the offence under Section 307 IPC is
committed or not. Similarly, in those cases
where the conviction is already recorded
by the trial court and the matter is at the
appellate stage before the High Court,
mere compromise between the parties
would not be a ground to accept the same
resulting in acquittal of the offender who
has already been convicted by the trial
court. Here charge is proved under Section
307 IPC and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore,
there is no question of sparing a convict
found guilty of such a crime."

13.
In
Prabatbhai
Aahir
Alias
Prabatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and
others vs. State of Gujarat and Another :
(2017) 9 SCC 641, the Apex Court has
summarized the broad principles with
regard to
quashing
of
the
criminal
proceedings on the basis of compromise
between the parties:

"16. The broad principles which
emerge from the precedents on the subject,
may be summarised in the following
propositions:

16.1. 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 recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. 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.

16.3. 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.

16.4. 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.

16.5. 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.

16.6. 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
1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

16.7.
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 insofar as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash
is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving
offences which arise 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.

16.9. In such a case, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceeding
if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction
is remote and the continuation of a
criminal
proceeding
would
cause
oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception
to the principle set out in propositions 16.8.
and 16.9. above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic wellbeing 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."

14. In the light of the aforesaid
decisions of the Apex Court, following
propositions emerges which are relevant to
the instant case. Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code preserves the
inherent power of the High Court to
prevent the abuse of process of any Court
or to secure the hands of justice:

a) the power to quash the criminal
proceedings u/S 482 Cr.P.C., is attracted
even
when
the
offences
is
noncompoundable;

b) though in the case involving
heinous and serious offences, normally the
inherent powers ought not to have been
exercised on the basis of compromise
between the parties. However, there is no
absolute bar that each and every case where
heinous crimes are alleged can never be
quashed. It will depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and while
exercising such powers, the ultimate object
is to see whether by exercising such powers
and quashing the criminal proceedings,
whether the ends of justice will be secured;
and

c) If on the facts of the case, the
Court is satisfied that prima facie the
offence alleged which is of heinous and
serious in nature is not constituted on the
facts of the case and parties have settle
their disputes through compromise and
further in view of such compromise, there
are remote and bleak possibilities of
conviction of the accused persons and the
continuation of such criminal proceedings
would cause oppression and prejudice, not
only to the accused but the victim as well
such proceedings can be quashed in
exercise of power u/S 482 of Cr.P.C., on
the basis of settlement between the parties.
3 All. Mohit Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1107

15. Question No. 'II'- To determine
the questions whether on the given facts of
the case, the offence u/S 376 I.P.C., is
made out against the applicant herein. It
will be relevant to note few decisions of the
Apex Court, which are as under.

16. In Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar
Sonar v. State of Maharashtra : (2019)
18 SCC 191, the Apex Court has held as
under:

"8. It is well settled that exercise
of powers under Section 482 CrPC is the
exception and not the rule. Under this
section, the High Court has inherent
powers to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under
the Code or to prevent the abuse of process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice. But the expressions "abuse of
process of law" or "to secure the ends of
justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction
on the High Court and the alleged abuse of
process of law or the ends of justice could
only be secured in accordance with law,
including
procedural
law
and
not
otherwise.

13. It is clear that for quashing
the proceedings, meticulous analysis of
factum of taking cognizance of an offence
by the Magistrate is not called for.
Appreciation of evidence is also not
permissible in exercise of inherent powers.
If the allegations set out in the complaint
do not constitute the offence of which
cognizance has been taken, it is open to the
High Court to quash the same in exercise
of the inherent powers.

24. In the instant case, it is an
admitted position that the appellant was
serving as a Medical Officer in the Primary
Health Centre and the complainant was
working as an Assistant Nurse in the same
health centre and that she is a widow. It
was alleged by her that the appellant
informed her that he is a married man and
that he has differences with his wife.
Admittedly,
they
belong
to
different
communities. It is also alleged that the
accused/appellant needed a month's time to
get
their
marriage
registered.
The
complainant further states that she had
fallen in love with the appellant and that
she needed a companion as she was a
widow. She has specifically stated that "as I
was also a widow and I was also in need of
a companion, I agreed to his proposal and
since then we were having love affair and
accordingly we started residing together.
We used to reside sometimes at my home
whereas sometimes at his home". Thus,
they were living together, sometimes at her
house and sometimes at the residence of the
appellant. They were in a relationship with
each other for quite some time and enjoyed
each other's company. It is also clear that
they had been living as such for quite some
time together. When she came to know that
the appellant had married some other
woman, she lodged the complaint. It is not
her case that the complainant has forcibly
raped her. She had taken a conscious
decision after active application of mind to
the things that had happened. It is not a
case of a passive submission in the face of
any psychological pressure exerted and
there was a tacit consent and the tacit
consent given by her was not the result of a
misconception created in her mind. We are
of the view that, even if the allegations
made in the complaint are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety,
they do not make out a case against the
appellant. We are also of the view that
since the complainant has failed to prima
facie show the commission of rape, the
complaint
registered
under
Section
376(2)(b) cannot be sustained."

17. In State of Karnataka v. M.
Devendrappa [State of Karnataka v. M.
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 : 2002
SCC (Cri) 539] , it was held by the Apex
Court that while exercising powers under
Section 482 CrPC, the court does not
function as a court of appeal or revision.
Inherent jurisdiction under the section
though wide has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution and only when
such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down in the section itself.
It was further held as under :

"6. ... It would be an abuse of
process of the court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercise of the
powers court would be justified to quash
any
proceeding
if
it
finds
that
initiation/continuance of it amounts to
abuse of the process of court or quashing
of these proceedings would otherwise serve
the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a
complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged
and whether any offence is made out even
if the allegations are accepted in toto."

18. Recently, in Vineet Kumar v.
State of U.P. [Vineet Kumar v. State of
U.P., (2017) 13 SCC 369 : (2017) 4 SCC
(Cri) 633] , the Apex Court
has observed as under :

"41. Inherent power given to the
High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with
the purpose and object of advancement of
justice. In case solemn process of Court is
sought to be abused by a person with some
oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the
attempt at the very threshold. ...