# Pramod Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 162
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2936 of 1987
- **Bench:** Madan Pal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-53882
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

A.G.A.

Issue for Consideration
The matter pertains to matrimonial disputes in
which wife of appellant no.1 alleged that she
was harrased and beaten by in -laws for dowry.

Headnotes
A. Criminal matter-Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section
374(2),
389,
482Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Section
307Powers of appellate court-Quashing of
conviction
based
on
compromise
in
matrimonial disputes-When the wife and
husband settle their differences, resume
cohabitation, and have lived peacefully for
decades with children born from the
marriage,
continuation
of
criminal
proceedings would be an abuse of process
law-The conviction can be set aside to
preserve family harmony.
Held
9 All. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
163
The court held that where the medical report
and doctor's testimony reveal that the injuries
caused to the victim were simple and not on any
vital part of the body, the offence u/s 307 IPC is
not made out-Even though Section 307 IPC is
non-compoundable, the High Court in exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction can, in exceptional
circumstances, quash the conviction to secure
the ends of justice, particularly in cases arising
out of matrimonial disputes where parties have
amicably settled and are living together.(Para 22
to 47)

Case law Cited
Kiran Tulsiram Ingle Vs Anupama P.Gayakwad
2006 0 Supreme (Bom) 1151 & Vinay Kumar Vs
State of U.P. & Anr. 2016 0 Supreme (P & H)
243,Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab (2012) 10
SCC 303, Ramgopal & Anr. Vs State of M.P.
2021 Legal Egale (SC) 569, B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs
State of Haryana & Anr (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil
Merchant Vs Central Bureau of Investigation &
Anr (2008) 9 SCC 677,M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan &
Ors (2019) 5 SCC 688-referred to.

List of Acts
Criminal Procedure Code,1973, Indian Penal
Code,1860.

List of Keywords
Medical report, non-compoundable, offence,
appellate jurisdiction, conviction, victim, injuries,
matrimonial disputes, compromise.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION-
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2936 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Pramod Kumar & Ors Vs. State of U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Appellant(s)
G.N. Chandra, M.C. Singh & V.K. Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent/Opposite Party
A.G.A

## Text

_Characters 0–39,759 of 63,972. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39759 for what follows._

162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pendency of present appeal. Inasmuch as
appellant Karua is said to have inflicted
three lathi blow to the deceased, resulting
in three lacerated wounds on his persons
which appear to be simple in nature. On
perusal of the postmortem report and the
opinion of doctor who is author of
postmortem report, the cause of death was
shock and hemorrhage caused by fire arm
injuries i.e. injury No.5 and 6. Thus,
appellant Karua cannot be said to have
contributed the resultant death of the
deceased Budh Singh.

52. In view of foregoing discussion
based on re-appreciation of evidence on
record, we are of the considered opinion
that learned trial court fell into error for
recording conviction of the accused persons
for said charges. Prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently,
the conviction and sentence passed by
learned trial court against the accused
Karua for charge under Section 147,
302/149 IPC fails and is liable to be setaside.

53. The conviction and sentence
awarded by trial court to the surviving
appellant Karua is set-aside. He is acquitted
of said charges under Section 147, 302/149
IPC, he has been enlarged on bail by order
of this Court during the pendency of the
appeal. He need not surrender. He is
directed to furnish two sureties and a
personal bond to the satisfaction of the trial
court in compliance of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C. within fifteen days from today. The
Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed.

54. Let a copy of this judgment trial
together with the trial court record be
forwarded to learned trial court for
compliance.

55. Before parting with the case, we
deeply appreciate the valuable assistance
rendered by Sri Priyansh, Advocate,
learned Amicus Curiae who argued the
case on behalf of surviving appellant
Karua. He will receive Rs.25,000/- as
honorarium from High Court, Legal Aid
Committee.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 162
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2936 of 1987

Pramod Kumar & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
G.N. Chandra, M.C. Singh, V.K. Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Issue for Consideration
The matter pertains to matrimonial disputes in
which wife of appellant no.1 alleged that she
was harrased and beaten by in -laws for dowry.

Headnotes
A. Criminal matter-Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section
374(2),
389,
482Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Section
307Powers of appellate court-Quashing of
conviction
based
on
compromise
in
matrimonial disputes-When the wife and
husband settle their differences, resume
cohabitation, and have lived peacefully for
decades with children born from the
marriage,
continuation
of
criminal
proceedings would be an abuse of process
law-The conviction can be set aside to
preserve family harmony.
Held
9 All. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
163
The court held that where the medical report
and doctor's testimony reveal that the injuries
caused to the victim were simple and not on any
vital part of the body, the offence u/s 307 IPC is
not made out-Even though Section 307 IPC is
non-compoundable, the High Court in exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction can, in exceptional
circumstances, quash the conviction to secure
the ends of justice, particularly in cases arising
out of matrimonial disputes where parties have
amicably settled and are living together.(Para 22
to 47)

Case law Cited
Kiran Tulsiram Ingle Vs Anupama P.Gayakwad
2006 0 Supreme (Bom) 1151 & Vinay Kumar Vs
State of U.P. & Anr. 2016 0 Supreme (P & H)
243,Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab (2012) 10
SCC 303, Ramgopal & Anr. Vs State of M.P.
2021 Legal Egale (SC) 569, B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs
State of Haryana & Anr (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil
Merchant Vs Central Bureau of Investigation &
Anr (2008) 9 SCC 677,M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan &
Ors (2019) 5 SCC 688-referred to.

List of Acts
Criminal Procedure Code,1973, Indian Penal
Code,1860.

List of Keywords
Medical report, non-compoundable, offence,
appellate jurisdiction, conviction, victim, injuries,
matrimonial disputes, compromise.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION-
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2936 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Pramod Kumar & Ors Vs. State of U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Appellant(s)
G.N. Chandra, M.C. Singh & V.K. Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent/Opposite Party
A.G.A

(Delivered by Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mr. M.C. Singh, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raj
Bahadur Verma, learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The instant criminal appeal is
directed against the judgment and order
dated 8th December, 1987 passed by the
Special Judge (E.C. Act) in Sessions Trial
No. 376 of 1984 (State Vs. Pramod Kumar
& 2 Others) under Sections 307 and 307/34
I.P.C., Police Station-Zarifnagar, DistrictBudaun, whereby the accused-appellant
nos. 1 and 3 have been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 307
I.P.C. and accused-appellant no.2 Ram
Patti has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and
they had been sentenced as follows:

"1. Accused-appellant no.1 was
sentenced
to
undergo
rigorous
imprisonment for a term of 5 years and fine
of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof, he had
to further undergo 1 year rigorous
imprisonment;

2. Accused-appellant no.3 Smt.
Vidyawati was sentenced to undergo 3
years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof, she had
to further undergo six month rigorous
imprisonment;

3. Accused-appellant no.2 Ram
Patti was sentenced to 2 years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in
default thereof, he had to further undergo 3
months rigorous imprisonment."

3. Brief facts, giving rise to the
questions involved in this case, are that the
parents of the complainant Kiran and the
accused persons, namely Pramod Kumar,
Ram Patti and Smt. Vidyawati are the
resident of village Auntar, Police Station
Zarifnagar
District
Budaun.
Accused-
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant no.1 Pramod Kumar is son of
accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3, namely,
Ram Patti and Smt. Vidyawati. In the
complaint, it was alleged that the marriage
of complainant Kiran was solemnized with
accused-appellant no.1 before a year of the
said complaint. In the marriage, father of
the complainant gave sufficient dowry,
according to his means and status. The
accused-appellant being greedy did not
satisfy with the dowry so given by her
parents. All of them started teasing the
young bride for bringing inadequate dowry
and she was subjected to day today teasing
and ill-treatment from her husband and inlaws. She was also subjected to beating by
the accused-appellant time and again for
additional demand of dowry. On the fateful
night of 5th June, 1983, the accusedappellant no.1 Pramod Kumar, as usual
started beating the complainant Smt. Kiran.
His parents also joined him after some
time. All of them caught hold of and placed
her hands beneath legs of cot and was
given merciless beating by fists and legs.
They also shouted while beating the
complainant Smt. Kiran for bringing a
motor-cycle and Rs. 5000/- from her
parents, otherwise she would be finished
one day or other. On showing her inability
to fulfil the said additional demand of
dowry,
the
accused-appellant
Pramod
Kumar became so furious and exhorted his
parents to teach her a lesson. On the said
exhortation, accused-appellant no.3 Smt.
Vidyawati brought kerosene oil and poured
the same on her and then, the accusedappellant Pramod Kumar set her on fire on
which the complainant Kiran started
shouting for her help. Hearing the said
voice,
witnesses,
namely,
Lakhan,
Mahendra
Pal,
Girdhari
and
Several
persons of the village came to the house of
the accused-appellants. On reaching there,
they saw the terror which was writ large on
the face of the complainant Kiran. Seeing
them complainant Kiran sobbed and
disclosed the entire story to them in
coherent sentences. The family members of
the complainant also came there. Soon after
she was rescued and was relieved from her
greedy parents in-laws. The complainant
Kiran was brought to her parents house.
The matter could not be reported to police
immediately due to threat and of accusedappellants. The complainant could manage
to go to the District Police Chief on 7th
June, 1983 and gave written report to him
personally. The District Police Chief
directed the Station Officer of concerning
Police Station to register the case against
the
accused
persons
and
get
the
complainant medically examined. The
report was handed over at Police Station on
9th June, 1983 at 08:15 a.m. and on the
basis of which chik report (exhibit ka-3)
was prepared. The relevant entries was also
made in General Diary. The carbon copy
has been proved as Exhibit Ka-4. The
complainant
Kiran
was
medically
examined
at
Primary
Health
Centre,
Digawan on 9th June, 1983 at 10:30 a.m.
When
the
police
of
Police
Station
Zarifnagar did not investigate the case
properly and submitted final report in the
case before the court concerned on 21st
November, 1983, in the meantime, the
complainant had filed private complaint in
the court of Munsif Magistrate (Economic
Offences). The complaint has been proved
as (Ext. Ka-2). The learned Magistrate after
recording the statement of complainant,
Smt. Kiran under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and
also after perusing other papers submitted
therewith
did
not
agree
with
the
investigation of the police and rejected the
final report vide his detailed order dated
2nd May, 1984. The accused persons were
committed to the court of Sessions. The
sessions trial as received to the Court of
9 All. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
165
Special Judge (E.C. Act), Budaun by way
of where accused persons put in appearance
and stood charge as aforesaid and have
been facing trial hither to.

4. The Prosecution, in support of its
case, has examined Prosecution Witness
No.1
i.e
Complainant
Smt.
Kiran,
Prosecution Witness No. 2 Lakhan, as
witnesses of fact. Besides the above, the
prosecution has also banked upon the
evidence of constable Onkar Singh (P.W.-
3) and Dr. T.A. Rafat as (P.W.-4).

5. P.W.-3 constable Onkar Singh is a
formal witness. He has proved the chik
report, copy of G.D. and a copy of N.C.R.
lodged by one Ram Pratap. This report has
been proved as Exhibit Ka-4.

6. Dr. T.A. Rafat (P.W.-4) had
examined the injuries of the complainant
Kiran and he had found following injuries
on the person of complainant Kiran:

"1. Superficial burn 2 cm. X 1.5
cm over left ring finger at the top.

2. Diffuse tramatic swelling in the
centre of right hand. Moment of the hand
was found normal .

3. Tramatic swelling and pain
over right elbow and upper part of right
arm."

7. After medically examined the
complainant Kiran, the P.W.-4 had opined
that injury no.1 was simple and caused by
burn and was about 4 days old. Injury nos.
2 and 3 were also simple and caused by
some some blunt weapon and they were
also about four days old. The injury report
of the complainant Kiran had been proved
as Exhibit Ka-6.

8. In the statements recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellants
denied their participation in the alleged
crime
and
attributed
to
their
false
implication in the case. The accusedappellant Pramod Kumar had stated in his
statement that merely as the complainant
Kiran was beautiful, he married her without
taking any dowry from her parents. He
further stated that only in order to grab
money from him, the father of the
complainant engineered the false case in
collusion with the complainant Kiran. The
accused-appellant no.2 Ram Patti had
stated in his statement that under the
influence of her father and witness Lakhan,
who was in his party, had filed the present
case against them. He further stated that he
had not demanded any dowry in the
marriage of his son i.e. accused-appellant
Pramod Kumar. The same version had been
reiterated by the accused-appellant no.3
Smt. Vidyawati.

9. Initially, the accused-appellant had
stated that they would adduce oral defence
but thereafter vide endorsement dated 15th
October, 1987, it was mentioned that no
oral defence would be adduced.

10. After considering the oral as well
as documentary evidence adduced during
the course of the trial and after hearing the
counsel
for
parties,
vide
impugned
judgment and order dated 8th December,
1987 passed in Sessions Trial No. 376 of
1984 (State Vs. Pramod Kumar & 2
Others) under Sections 307, 307/34 I.P.C.,
Police Station-Zarifnagar, District-Budaun,
the trial court found the accused-appellant
nos. 1 and 3, Pramod Kumar and Smt.
Vidyawati guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 307 I.P.C., whereas the
accused-appellant no.2 Ram Patti was
found guilty for the offence punishable
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 307 read with Section 34
I.P.C. After conviction, the trial court has
accused-appellant no.1 to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a term of 5 years and fine
of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof, he had
to
further
undergo 1
year
rigorous
imprisonment; accused-appellant no.3 Smt.
Vidyawati to undergo 3 years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and
in default thereof, she had to further
undergo six month rigorous imprisonment;
and the accused-appellant no.2 Ram Patti
was
sentenced
to
2
years
rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in
default thereof, he had to further undergo 3
months rigorous imprisonment.

11. It is against this judgment and
order of the trial court, the present criminal
appeal has been filed.

12. When the present appeal was
entertained, a Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 14th December,
1987 enlarged the accused-appellants on
bail. During the pendency of the appeal,
since the appellant nos. 2 and 3, namely,
Ram Patti and Smt. Vidyawati had died, the
present appeal at their behest had already
been
abated
vide
order
dated
3rd
September, 2013 by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court.

13. After 2013, when this appeal has
come up for hearing before this Court on 11th
September, 2025, Mr. M.C. Singh, learned
counsel appearing for appellant no.1 has
stated that since the appellant no.1 Pramod
Kumar and the complainant Smt. Kiran who
are husband and wife respectively after
settling their disputes amicably, had entered
into compromise just after filing of the instant
appeal i.e in the year 1987 and they are living
happily as husband and wife along with their
children. In that regard the learned counsel
for the appellant no.1 has also filed a joint
affidavit
annexing
the
copy
of
the
compromise which has been brought on
record.

14. In the joint affidavit, which has been
brought on record, both appellant no.1
(deponent no.1 in the affidavit) and the
complainant Kiran (deponent no.2 in the
affidavit) have stated as under:

"1. That the deponent no. 1 is the
appellant no.1 in the aforesaid appeal and
doing pairvi of his case and as such they he is
well acquainted with the facts deposed to
below:-

2. That the deponent no.2, who is
victim-injured, W/o appellant no.1, who is
well acquainted with the facts deposed to
below.

3. at is stated that the That the
outset it appellant no.2 and 3, namely
Rampatti and Smt. Vidyawati, died long back.
The aforesaid appeal against appellant no.2
and 3, stands abated by this Hon'ble Court by
order dated 03.09.2013.

4. That both the deponents who are
husband and wife respectively, with best
efforts of members of both the families living
together since 1988, till date.

5. That from their wed lock there
are four children, three boys, namely,
Anshul aged about 30 years, Ankit aged
about 28 years and Himanshu aged about
26 years, and one daughter, namely,
Monika aged about 25 years.

6. That at present deponent no.2,
Smt. Kiran W/o Pramod Kumar, has no
grudge/complaint against Pramod Kumar
appellant no.1.
9 All. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
167

7. That as both the deponents
settled their disputes with the efforts of
elder members of both the families and
living together since 1988, after filing the
aforesaid appeal in this Hon'ble Court in
the year 1987.

8. That both the deponents jointly
prayed that as both the deponents settled
their disputes, who are husband and wife
and living together and from their wed lock
four
children
born
and
has
no
grudge/complaint against each other the
aforesaid appeal be disposed of acquitting
the appellant no.1.

9. That it is pertinent to mention
here that first informant Sri Suratpal, who
was father in law of deponent no.1appellant no.1, and father injured-victim,
Smt. Kiran, died long back about 15 years
back. of

10. That this joint affidavit be
treated as the part of the criminal appeal
and be considered at the time of the
disposal of the aforesaid appeal."

15. Learned counsel for the accusedappellant no. 1 submits that the offence
under Section 307 I.P.C. is a noncompoundable offence, as is clear from the
perusal of the table referred to under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, this Hon'ble
Court having appellate jurisdiction can
quash the proceeding in cases of non
compoundable offences.

16. Learned counsel for the accusedappellant no.1 has further submitted that
though the offence under Section 307 IPC
is non-compoundable offence, but, in the
present case, when the parties have
entered into compromise and both are
living as husband and wife under one
roof alongwith their two sons and
daughter, impugned judgment and order
of the trial court against the accusedappellant no.1 may be quashed as the
pendency of the instant appeal against
him, would be an abuse of process of the
law and this Court will vitiate the purpose
of compromise and cordial relationship
between the husband and wife along with
their children.

17. Learned counsel for the accusedappellant no.1 has lastly submitted that
the Bombay High Court as well as
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court
in the cases of Kiran Tulsiram Ingle vs.
Anupama P. Gayakwad reported in
2006 0 Supreme (Bom) 1151 and Vinay
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another;
reported in 2016 0 Supreme (P & H) 243,
even after conviction, Hon'ble Courts
have been pleased to quash the criminal
proceeding during the pendency of the
appeal, exercising the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

18. To further bolster the aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel for the
applicants has placed reliance upon the
following judgments of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court, Bombay High Court
and the Apex Court:

i. Vinay Kumar (Supra);

ii.
Kiran
Tulsiram
Ingle
(Supra);

iii. Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303;
and

(iv) Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2021
Legal Egale (SC) 569.
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In view of aforesaid submissions,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
submitted that the proceedings of the above
mentioned criminal case are liable to be
quashed by this Court as also the
consequences thereof, i.e., conviction of the
applicants is also liable to be set aside.

19. Alternatively, learned counsel for
the appellant no.1 submits that since, as per
the medical examination report and the
testimony of the doctor who had medically
examined the victim/complainant as P.W.-
4, all the injuries found on the person of the
victim/complainant are simple in nature
and not on the vital part of her body and
also the superficial burn injury found on the
body of the victim/complainant is at the top
of her left ring finger and such injuries are
not sufficient to cause death of the victim,
therefore, no case under Section 307 I.P.C.
for causing such injuries upon her is made
out against the appellant no.1, whereas, for
such injuries, at the most offence under
Section 324 I.P.C. would be made out
against the appellant no.1.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant
no.1, thus, submits that as Section 324
I.P.C. provides for a maximum punishment
of
three
years
and
fine,
therefore,
considering the age of the appellant no.1
i.e. about 66 years, the period of
incarceration already undergone by him
and the period of the instant appeal, which
is pending since 1987, he may be acquitted
while
setting
a
side
the
impugned
judgment.

21. Mr. Raj Bahadur Verma, learned
A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer
made by the learned counsel for appellant
no.1 by contending that since appellant
no.1 has been convicted for the offence
under Section 307 I.P.C. which is noncompoundable, this Court, in exercise of
appellate powers under Section 374 read
with Section 389 Cr.P.C. cannot quash the
impugned judgment and order of the
conviction passed against appellant no.1 on
the basis of compromise. However, learned
A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the
fact that as per the medical evidence, the
appellant no.1 at most could be convicted
under Section 324 I.P.C. and not under
Section 307 I.P.C. He also could not
dispute the age of the appellant no.1 and
the pendency of the instant appeal.

22. I have considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, arguments so
advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant no.1 and learned A.G.A., perused
the material available on record including
the impugned judgment of conviction and
specifically the contents of the compromise
so entered into between the parties.

23. Before proceeding any further, this
Court, first, may come on the merits of the
impugned judgment of conviction. During
the course of argument, learned counsel for
the appellant no.1 did not question the
entire judgment of the trial court. He has
only questioned a part of the same in which
the trial court has convicted the appellants
including appellant no.1 under section 307
I.P.C. instead of Section 324 I.P.C. even
though the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.
was neither made out nor proved against
them as per the medical evidence and the
testimony of P.W.-4.. As per the medical
examination
report
of
the
victim/complainant and the testimony of
P.W.-4 who medically examined the
victim/complainant, the injuries found on
the person of the victim/complainant are
simple in nature and not on the vital part of
her body, meaning thereby that the same
could not sufficient to cause death to the
9 All. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
169
victim in any manner. For causing such
injuries, only Section 324 I.P.C. could be
made out against the appellant no.1 and
said offence under Section 324 I.P.C. could
be proved against him. Therefore, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the
impugned judgment of conviction of
appellant no.1 is liable to be altered from
Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324 I.P.C.
Hence the conviction as awarded by the
trial court under the impugned judgment is
hereby modified to that extent only.

24. Now at this juncture, the issues
which are up for consideration before this
Court are whether (i) this Court first can
convert non-compoundable offence into
compoundable one (Section 324 I.P.C. in
the facts of the present case), and (ii)
quash/set aside the impugned judgment and
order of conviction passed against appellant
no.1 while exercising its appellate power
under Section 374/389 Cr.P.C. to arrive at
the ends of justice and in view of
compromise so arrived at between the
parties, who are none other than the
husband and wife, when there is no equally
efficacious course is open for the parties to
get the relief prayed for herein.

25. There are authoritative judicial
precedents where the Apex Court has
approved the quashing of the proceedings
when it found that they emanated from
mutual marital discord, even though the
proceedings included some offences, which
were
not
compoundable
(Section
324/307I.P.C. in the facts of the present
case). In the present case, the dispute is
matrimonial in nature, i.e., between the
husband and wife in which the husband,
father-in-law and mother-in-law of the wife
have been convicted by the court below and
they filed an appeal against the order of
conviction. In the appeal, they have been
enlarged on bail and for happy and peaceful
life of the husband and wife as also the life
of their son, they have settled their disputes
during the pendency of the appeal and both
husband and wife arrived at a compromise.
After compromise, they are living together
happily along with their sons and daughter,
namely, Anshul aged about 30 years, Ankit
aged about 28 years, Himanshu aged about
26 years and Monika aged about 25 years
respectively. This Court, therefore, deems
it appropriate and expedient to quash the
impugned
judgment
and
order
of
conviction, as it will result into a fruitless
and vain exercise in the peaceful life of
husband and wife as also their sons and
daughter.

26. In various judgments, the Apex
Court has held that if the parties have
settled their disputes and arrived at a
compromise for their safe and peaceful life,
the High Court, in exercise of its inherent
power i.e. under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can
quash the criminal proceedings initiated
under
the
compoundable
and
noncompoundable sections if the same relate to
offences
arising
from
commercial,
financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or
such like transactions or offences arising
out of matrimony relating to dowry etc.,
or family disputes, as it would be unfair
or contrary to interest of justice to
continue with criminal proceeding or
continuation of criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law and
to secure ends of justice.

(Emphasis added)

27. The Apex Court in the case of B.S.
Joshi & Others VS. State of Haryana &
Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 has
opined that while exercising power of
quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for
the
High
Court
to
take
into
consideration any special features which
appear in a particular case to consider
whether it is expedient and in the interest of
justice to permit a prosecution to continue.
Where, in the opinion of the Court chances
of an ultimate conviction is bleak and
therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing a criminal prosecution
to continue, the Court may, while taking
into consideration the special facts of a
case, also quash the proceedings. The
special features in
such matrimonial
matters are evident. It becomes the duty of
the Court to encourage genuine settlements
of matrimonial disputes. Paragraph nos. 2,
13 to 15 of the said judgment, which are
relevant, read as follows:

"2.The question that falls for
determination in the instant case is about
the ambit of the inherent powers of the
High Courts under Section 482, Code of
Criminal Procedure (Code) read with
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India to quash criminal proceedings. The
scope and ambit of power under Section
482 has been examined by this Court in
catena of earlier decisions but in the
present case that is required to be
considered in relation to matrimonial
disputes. The matrimonial disputes of the
kind in the present case have been on
considerable increase in recent times
resulting in filing of complaints by the wife
under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not only
against the husband but his other family
members also. When such matters are
resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin
the matrimonial home or mutual separation
of husband and wife and also mutual
settlement of other pending disputes as a
result whereof both sides approach the
High Court and jointly pray for quashing of
the criminal proceedings or the First
Information Report or complaint filed by
the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC,
can the prayer be declined on the ground
that
since
the
offences
are
noncompoundable under Section 320 of the
Code and, therefore, it is not permissible
for the Court to quash the criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint.

...

13. The observations made by this
Court, though in a slightly different
context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad &
Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for
determining the approach required to be
kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the
courts, it was said that there has been an
outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent
times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the
main purpose of which is to enable the
young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully.
But
little
matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in
commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with
the result that those who could have
counselled
and
brought
about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on
their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other
reasons which need not be mentioned here
for not encouraging matrimonial litigation
so that the parties may ponder over their
defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it
takes years and years to conclude and in
that process the parties lose their "young"
days in chasing their "cases" in different
courts.

14. There is no doubt that the
object of introducing Chapter XX-A
9 All. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
171
containing Section 498A in the Indian
Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a
woman by her husband or by relatives of
her husband. Section 498A was added
with a view to punishing a husband and
his relatives who harass or torture the wife
to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy
unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical
view
would
be
counter
productive and would act against interests
of women and against the object for which
this provision was added. There is every
likelihood that non-exercise of inherent
power to quash the proceedings to meet
the ends of justice would prevent women
from settling earlier. That is not the object
of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

15. In view of the above
discussion, we hold that the High Court in
exercise of its inherent powers can quash
criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint
and Section 320 of the Code does not limit
or affect the powers under Section 482 of
the Code."

(Emphasis added)

28. The Apex Court in the case of
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr. reported in (2008) 9
SCC 677, keeping in mind the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi
(Supra) has held that this is a fit case
where technicality should not be allowed to
stand in the way in quashing of the criminal
proceedings, since, in our view, the
continuance of the same after compromise
arrived at between the parties would be a
futile
exercise.
For
ready
reference,
Paragraph nos. 29, 30, 31 which are
relevant, read as follows:

"29. Despite the ingredients and
the factual content of an offence of cheating
punishable under Section 420 IPC, the
same has been made compoundable under
Sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. with
the leave of the Court. Of course, forgery
has not been included as one of the
compoundable offences, but it is in such
cases that the principle enunciated in B.S.
Joshi's case (supra) becomes relevant.

30. In the instant case, the
disputes between the Company and the
Bank have been set at rest on the basis of
the compromise arrived at by them
whereunder the dues of the Bank have been
cleared and the Bank does not appear to
have any further claim against the
Company. What, however, remains is the
fact that certain documents were alleged to
have been created by the appellant herein
in order to avail of credit facilities beyond
the limit to which the Company was
entitled. The dispute involved herein has
overtones of a civil dispute with certain
criminal facets. The question which is
required to be answered in this case is
whether the power which independently lies
with this Court to quash the criminal
proceedings pursuant to the compromise
arrived at, should at all be exercised?

31. On an overall view of the
facts as indicated hereinabove and
keeping in mind the decision of this Court
in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and the
compromise arrived at between the
Company and the Bank as also clause 11
of the consent terms filed in the suit filed
by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a
fit case where technicality should not be
allowed to stand in the way in the
quashing of the criminal proceedings,
since, in our view, the continuance of the
same after the compromise arrived at
between the parties would be a futile
exercise."
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. The Apex Court in the case of the
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi
Narayan & Others reported in (2019) 5
SCC 688, has held that mere compromise
between the parties would not be 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. But the
Apex Court in the said judgment, taking into
consideration the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Gian Singh (Supra), has
opined that 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
causing extreme injustice to him by not
quashing the criminal cases. The Apex Court
has also held that mere mention of Section
307 cannot be sole basis of decision for not
quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Relevant paragraph nos. 15 to 18 read as
follows:

"15. 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:

15.1. 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
disputes and when the parties have
resolved
the
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves;

15.2. 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;

15.3. 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;

15.4. 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
amongst
themselves.
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
9 All. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
173
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;

15.5. while exercising the power
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable 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.

16. Insofar as the present case is
concerned, the High Court has quashed the
criminal proceedings for the offences under
Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and
even when the investigation was under
progress. Somehow, the accused managed
to enter into a compromise with the
complainant and sought quashing of the
FIR on the basis of a settlement. The
allegations are serious in nature. He used
the fire arm also in commission of the
offence. Therefore, the gravity of the
offence and the conduct of the accused is
not at all considered by the High Court and
solely on the basis of a settlement between
the accused and the complainant, the High
Court has mechanically quashed the FIR,
in exercise of power under Section 482 of
the Code, which is not sustainable in the
eyes of law. The High Court has also failed
to note the antecedents of the accused.

17. In view of the above and for
the reasons stated, the present appeal is
allowed. The impugned judgment and order
dated 07.10.2013 passed by the High Court
in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 8000
of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside,
and
the
FIR/investigation/criminal
proceedings be proceeded against the
accused, and they shall be dealt with, in
accordance with law. Criminal Appeal
No.350 of 2019

18. So far as Criminal Appeal
arising
out
of
SLP
10324/2018
is
concerned, by the impugned judgment and
order, the High Court has quashed the
criminal proceedings for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 294, 308 &
34 of the IPC, solely on the ground that the
accused and the complainant have settled
the matter and in view of the decision of
this Court in the case of Shiji(supra), there
may not be any possibility of recording a
conviction against the accused. Offence
under Section 308 IPC is a noncompoundable offence. While committing
the offence, the accused has used the fire
arm. They are also absconding, and in the
meantime, they have managed to enter into
a compromise with the complainant.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above,
this appeal is also allowed, the impugned
judgment and order dated 28.05.2018
passed by the High Court in Miscellaneous
Criminal Case No. 19309/2018 is hereby
quashed
and
set
aside,
and
the
FIR/investigation/criminal proceedings be
proceeded against the accused, and they
shall be dealt with, in accordance with
law."
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30.