# Pooja Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 250
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-04
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 8 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pooja-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-51132
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 376, 313, 323,
504, 506 & 507 - Quashing of Criminal
Proceedings Based on Compromise - The
applicants sought to quash the proceedings of
Sessions Trial No. 378 of 2021 under Sections
376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507 IPC based on a
compromise deed dated 29.12.2023 - Held, the
proceedings were quashed as the complainant
(petitioner no. 1) and accused (petitioner no. 2)
were married, living happily with a son, and the
complainant
was
unwilling
to
prosecute,
rendering further trial futile. (Paras 3, 7, 10, 11)

B. Private Nature of Dispute - The dispute
arose from an FIR lodged by petitioner no. 1
(wife) against petitioner no. 2 (husband) due to
a misunderstanding - Held, as the offence was
private in nature with no societal impact, and
the parties had amicably settled, quashing the
proceedings was justified. (Paras 7, 8)

C. Complainant's Reluctance to Prosecute
- Petitioner no. 1, the complainant, St.d in court
that she was unwilling to prosecute her husband
(petitioner no. 2) or others, as they were living
peacefully with a child - Held, compelling the
complainant to pursue the trial would be a
waste of judicial time and prejudicial to the
parties. (Paras 5, 7, 8)

D. Judicial Precedent for Quashing Based
on Compromise - Relying on Jatin Agarwal Vs
St. of Telangana, the court noted that criminal
proceedings
involving
private
disputes,
particularly
between
spouses
who
have
reconciled, may be quashed - Held, the present
case warranted quashing due to the parties'
marriage and amicable settlement. (Paras 9, 10)

E. Directive for Marriage Registration -
The court directed the petitioners to register
their
marriage
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Marriages Registration Rules, 2017 within one
month - Held, this ensured legal formalization
1 All. Pooja Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
251
of their marital status post-compromise. (Para
12)

Application Allowed

List of Cases cited:

## Text

250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
अपास्ि कर कदया र्या िर्था पुनः विचारण के
दौरान इस न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुसार
पीकडिा का बयान अिंककि ककया र्या जजसमें
उसने प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध आरोपों को पुष्ट ककया,
इसके िुरिंि बाद अर्ले ही कदन प्रार्थी ने पीकडिा
से मुकदमें की कायगिाही समाि करिाने के
उद्देश्य से पीकडिा से सुलह करके वििाह कर
धलया, जजससे प्रर्थम दृष्टया प्रिीि होिा है कक
प्रार्थी द्वारा सुलह मात्र आपराधिक मुकदमें से
बचने के उद्देश्य से की र्ई र्थी ।

10. मामले के उपरोक्त विशेष प्रकृधि के
िथ्यों और पररजस्र्थधियों को देखिे हुए
न्यायालय का मि है कक बलात्कार िर्था
बाधलका के विरुद्ध लैंधर्क प्रिेशन करके उसको
र्िगििी करने का आरोप अत्यिंि र्िंिीर प्रकृधि
का होने के कारण प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध आपराधिक
िाद की कायगिाही सुलह के आिार पर समाि
नहीिं की जा सकिी है।

11. उपरोक्त वििेचना के आिार पर
प्रार्थगना-पत्र धनरस्ि ककया जािा है।
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 250
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 8 of 2024

Pooja Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party
Counsel for the Applicants:
Dharmendra Kumar, Santosh Kumar Giri

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 376, 313, 323,
504, 506 & 507 - Quashing of Criminal
Proceedings Based on Compromise - The
applicants sought to quash the proceedings of
Sessions Trial No. 378 of 2021 under Sections
376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507 IPC based on a
compromise deed dated 29.12.2023 - Held, the
proceedings were quashed as the complainant
(petitioner no. 1) and accused (petitioner no. 2)
were married, living happily with a son, and the
complainant
was
unwilling
to
prosecute,
rendering further trial futile. (Paras 3, 7, 10, 11)

B. Private Nature of Dispute - The dispute
arose from an FIR lodged by petitioner no. 1
(wife) against petitioner no. 2 (husband) due to
a misunderstanding - Held, as the offence was
private in nature with no societal impact, and
the parties had amicably settled, quashing the
proceedings was justified. (Paras 7, 8)

C. Complainant's Reluctance to Prosecute
- Petitioner no. 1, the complainant, St.d in court
that she was unwilling to prosecute her husband
(petitioner no. 2) or others, as they were living
peacefully with a child - Held, compelling the
complainant to pursue the trial would be a
waste of judicial time and prejudicial to the
parties. (Paras 5, 7, 8)

D. Judicial Precedent for Quashing Based
on Compromise - Relying on Jatin Agarwal Vs
St. of Telangana, the court noted that criminal
proceedings
involving
private
disputes,
particularly
between
spouses
who
have
reconciled, may be quashed - Held, the present
case warranted quashing due to the parties'
marriage and amicable settlement. (Paras 9, 10)

E. Directive for Marriage Registration -
The court directed the petitioners to register
their
marriage
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Marriages Registration Rules, 2017 within one
month - Held, this ensured legal formalization
1 All. Pooja Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
251
of their marital status post-compromise. (Para
12)

Application Allowed

List of Cases cited:

1.
Jatin
Agarwal
Vs
St.
of
Telangana,
AIRONLINE 2022 SC 1464

(Delivered by Hon'ble Hon'ble Rajesh
Singh Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Ram Raj Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. With the consent of parties, the
case is being decided finally at the
admission stage.

3. By means of this petition filed u/s
482 Cr.P.C. the following relief has been
prayed :

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly
be pleased to quash entire criminal
proceeding of Session Trial No. 378 of
2021 arising out of charge sheet dated
3.9.2020 filed by investigating officer in
Crime No. 117 of 2020 u/s 376, 313, 323,
504, 506, 507 I.P.C. relating to Police
Station -Indira Nagar, District Lucknow in
re- State Versus Devendra Pratap Singh on
the basis of compromise dated 29.12.2023,
contained as Annexure No. -1 to the
application, in the interest of justice.

Meanwhile, this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to stay the further
proceeding of Session Trial No. 378 of
2021 arising out of Crime No.-117 of 2020
under section -376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 507
IPC relating to Police Station-Indira
Nagar, District Lucknow pending in the
court of Fast Track Court, Lucknow, in re-
State Versus Devendra Pratap Singh, in the
interest of justice."

4. Though the petitioners were not
summoned to appear before the Court but
they have appeared to convince the Court
that they have settled their dispute
amicably through registered compromise
deed, the original copy thereof has been
enclosed as Annexure no. 1. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has stated that
having
some
wrong
impression
and
confusion the petitioner no. 1 has lodged a
F.I.R. on 14.3.2020 u/s 376, 313, 323, 504,
506, 507 I.P.C. against the petitioner no. 2
and two others. However, the petitioner no.
1 married with the petitioner no. 2 on
6.12.2021 by adopting Hindu rituals and
since then i.e. 6.12.2021 both are living
together
as
husband
and
wife.
On
27.11.2022 both became parents of one son.
The parties are present in the Court with
their son also. ]

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has further submitted that after lodging the
F.I.R. the charge-sheet was filed, court
concerned has taken cognizance, matter
was committed to sessions, thereafter
charges were framed and trial proceeded.
The Sessions Trial number is 378 of 2021.
The chief-examination of petitioner no. 1
has already taken place but she has not
been cross-examined till date. On being
asked from Ms. Pooja Bharti @ Pooja
Singh as to whether she is willing to
prosecute the petitioner no. 2 i.e. Devendra
Pratap Singh and others in the sessions
trial, she has specifically and categorically
stated that the petitioner no. 2 is her
husband, they are having one son, they are
living peacefully together and she has no
grudges or grievance against her husband
or others against whom the allegations have
been levelled in the F.I.R. At the same time
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner no. 2 i.e. Devendra Pratap
Singh has also informed the Court that he is
living with his wife Pooja Bharti @ Pooja
Singh w.e.f. 6.12.2021, they are happily
living, he has no grievance of any kind
whatsoever against his wife i.e. Pooja
Bharti @ Pooja Singh, therefore, he prayed
that the criminal case pending against him
may be set aside / quashed on the basis of
aforesaid compromise.

6. Sri Ram Raj Singh, learned AGA
has stated that though the sessions trial is in
process wherein the cross-examination of
complainant / petitioner no. 1 is to take
place but if the complainant / informant
herself is not willing to prosecute her
husband i.e. petitioner no. 2 and they have
entered into a compromise then any
appropriate order to suffice the ends of
justice may be passed.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record as well as having regard
to the statements, so recorded by the
petitioners
before
the
Court,
more
particularly, the statement of the petitioner
no. 1 who is informant / complainant to the
effect that she is not willing to contest the
criminal case before the sessions court and
she is not willing to prosecute her husband
and others with whom she is living
peacefully and she is also having son with
the wedlock with the petitioner no. 2 and
she has also stated that she has entered into
an agreement / compromise with her freewill and without any coercion, so I find that
no fruitful purpose would be served to
proceed the sessions trial further. In the
given
facts
and
circumstances
as
considered above to permit the sessions
trial further would not only be a sheer
waste of time of sessions court but also
may cause prejudice to the parties who are
happily living as husband and wife since
6.12.2021 and are having son since
27.11.2022.

8. The purpose of criminal justice is
to prosecute the wrong doer who has
committed any offense but it would not be
the purpose of the criminal justice to
compel any person to face prosecution
when the complainant / informant is his
wife and has admitted that on account of
some
wrong
advice
or
under
bad
impression the case was lodged and she is
not willing to contest the case. Besides, the
facts and circumstances of the present case
do not involve the serious allegations or
any allegation relating to any offense
against society and the dispute appears to
be private in nature wherein the petitioner
no. 1 has lodged a F.I.R. against the
petitioner no. 2 who are admittedly
husband
and
wife
having one
son,
therefore, if the proceedings of the
aforesaid case are set aside or quashed, it
will not have any impact upon the society.
The law is trite that the serious offences
having impact upon the society may not be
quashed or set aside on the basis of
compromise but the minor offences or
criminal offences which are not having any
direct impact on the society, rather those
offences are private in nature may be set
aside / quashed on the basis of agreement.
In these minor offences etc. the parties may
not be compelled to face the trial
proceedings when they are not interested to
prosecute each other.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re:
Jatin Agarwal vs. State of Telangana,
AIRONLINE 2022 SC 1464 has quashed
the order of the High Court which was
passed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissing the
petition of the petitioner wherein it was
pleaded before the High Court that the
1 All. Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
253
petitioner, Jatin Agarwal, has married with
the lady and living happily with her as
husband and wife, therefore, the F.I.R. u/s
417, 420 and 376 IPC may be quashed.
However, the High Court rejected the
petition, the Apex Court has observed that
considering the aforesaid fact and keeping in
a view that the lady has herself made a
statement before the Apex Court that she has
married with the appellant and now living
happily, quashed the aforesaid F.I.R.

10. In the aforesaid case, notably both
the petitioners are husband and wife and the
petitioner no. 1 has herself made a statement
before the Court that she has married the
petitioner no. 2 and now living happily with
him, therefore, I find this a fit case wherein
the criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial
No. 378 of 2021 arising out of charge sheet
dated 3.9.2020 filed by investigating officer
in Crime No. 117 of 2020 u/s 376, 313, 323,
504, 506, 507 I.P.C. relating to Police Station
-Indira Nagar, District Lucknow in re- State
Versus Devendra Pratap Singh is liable to be
set-aside and quashed.

11. In view of the above, I hereby
quash the entire proceedings of Sessions
Trial No. 378 of 2021 arising out of charge
sheet dated 3.9.2020 filed by investigating
officer in Crime No. 117 of 2020 u/s 376,
313, 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C. relating to
Police
Station
-Indira
Nagar,
District
Lucknow in re- State Versus Devendra Pratap
Singh pending in the court of Fast Track
Court, Lucknow.

12. The petitioners shall get their
marriage registered under the "Uttar
Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules,
2017" within one month from today.

13. In view of above, the petition is
allowed.

14. Consequences to follow.

15. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 13 of 2024

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Shitesh Jha, Dr. Shailendra Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154, 156(1),
156(3) & 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 34, 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 &
386 - Applicant challenged order treating
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application as a
complaint and summoning him for offences
under Sections 452, 323, 506, 354 I.P.C.,
alleging false allegations to pressure him.
Court held: (1) Police lacked authority to
investigate allegations in Section 156(3)
application without Magistrate's direction, as
investigation under Section 156(1) requires
FIR registration under Section 154 (Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs Aryan Singh, 2023
SCC OnLine 379). (2) Police report declaring
allegations false was beyond jurisdiction, as
their role is limited to reporting whether a
case was registered, not investigating without
court order. (3) Under Section 482, court
cannot
conduct
a
mini-trial
to
assess
correctness of allegations; applicant can raise
defenses during trial. (4) Application lacked
merit, as validity of allegations must be tested
in trial, not under Section 482 jurisdiction.
Application rejected. (Paras 9-12)