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

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 903
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-31
- **Case number:** Applictation U/S 482 No.1863 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47415
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 354B,
376, 511 - Dowry prohibition Act,1961
(D.P. Act) - Section 3/4 - legal position for
quashing of the proceedings at the initial
stage - test to be applied - whether
uncontroverted allegation as made prima
facie establishes the offence and the
chances of ultimate conviction is bleak
and no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing criminal proceedings to
be continue - quashing of the criminal
proceedings is an exception than a rule -
power of High Court should be exercised
very cautiously to do real and substantial
justice
for
which
the
court
alone
exists.(Para - 11)
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Offences are of matrimonial private dispute
and differences
- compromise between
parties - compliance of order - withdraw all
criminal and civil cases filed against each
other
-
quashing
of
chargesheet
and
proceedings.

HELD:-Keeping in view the nature and
gravity and the severity of the offence which
are more particularly is matrimonial private
dispute and differences it is deem proper
and meet to the ends of justice. Proceedings
liable to be quashed. (Para - 12)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

9 All Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
903
trial Court's judgment. However, such a
precautionary
principle
cannot
be
overstretched to portray that the "contours
of appeal" against acquittal under Section
378 CrPC are limited to seeing whether or
not the trial Court's view was impossible. It
is equally well settled that there is no bar
on the High Court's power to re-appreciate
evidence in an appeal against acquittal11.
This Court has held in a catena of
decisions (including Chandrappa v. State
of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, 42. State
of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan
Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582 20-21 and
Raveen Kumar v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, 2020 SCC Online SC 869, 11.)
that the Cr.P.C does not differentiate in the
power, scope, jurisdiction or limitation
between appeals against judgments of
conviction or acquittal and that the
appellate Court is free to consider on both
fact and law, despite the self-restraint that
has been ingrained into practice while
dealing with orders of acquittal where
there is a double presumption of innocence
of the accused".

16. We do not find any factual or
legal error in the appreciation of evidence
by the trial Court while acquitting the
accused-respondents because there are
material contradictions in the evidence of
the victim. Medical evidence does not
support the prosecution version. The
statement of the victim is not of 'sterling'
quality. There is no corroboratory evidence
on record. Even P.W. 2, the husband of the
victim, has given contradictory statements.
Moreover, the view taken by the trial Court
is a possible view. The trial Court has given
valid, convincing and satisfactory reasons
while passing the order of acquittal for not
relying on the evidence of victim. For the
aforesaid reasons, there appears no ground
to disturb the acquittal recorded by the trial
Court.

17. We, therefore, do not consider it
to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal
to the appellant. The application seeking
leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected and
the appeal is also dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A903
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Applictation U/S 482 No.1863 of 2021

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Onkar Singh, Sri Sachin Malik.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Dheeraj Singh (Bohra)

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 354B,
376, 511 - Dowry prohibition Act,1961
(D.P. Act) - Section 3/4 - legal position for
quashing of the proceedings at the initial
stage - test to be applied - whether
uncontroverted allegation as made prima
facie establishes the offence and the
chances of ultimate conviction is bleak
and no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing criminal proceedings to
be continue - quashing of the criminal
proceedings is an exception than a rule -
power of High Court should be exercised
very cautiously to do real and substantial
justice
for
which
the
court
alone
exists.(Para - 11)
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Offences are of matrimonial private dispute
and differences
- compromise between
parties - compliance of order - withdraw all
criminal and civil cases filed against each
other
-
quashing
of
chargesheet
and
proceedings.

HELD:-Keeping in view the nature and
gravity and the severity of the offence which
are more particularly is matrimonial private
dispute and differences it is deem proper
and meet to the ends of justice. Proceedings
liable to be quashed. (Para - 12)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. B.S. Joshi Vs St. of Har. & ors., 2003 (4)
ACC 675

2. Gian Singh Vs St. of Pun., 2012 (10) SCC
303

3. Dimpey Gujral & ors. Vs Union Territory
Through Administrator, 2013 (11) SCC 697

4. Narendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. & ors.,
2014 (6) SCC 466

5. Yogendra Yadav & ors. Vs St. of Jharkh.&
ors., 2014 (9) SCC 653

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

7. S.W. Palankattkar & ors. Vs St. of Bihar,
2002 (44) ACC 168

8. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Pun., AIR 1960 S.C.
866

9. St. of Har. Vs Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426

10. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192

11. Z & u Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr., 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J. )

1. Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned
counsel for the applicants, Sri Dheeraj
Singh (Bohra), learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 as well as learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed with the prayer to quash the
entire proceedings in Case No.14943 of
2020 (Pramod Kumar and others vs. State)
in view of the charge sheet dated 9.9.2020
arising out of case crime no.29 of 2020,
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354,
354B, 376, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.
Act, P.S. Mahila Thana District Meerut.

3. In compliance of the order dated
22.7.2021 passed by this Court, applicant
no.1-Pramod Kumar and his son Vipin Kumar
has brought two drafts before this Court. The
first draft is of Rs.9,00,000/- dated 24.8.2021
bearing Draft No.911254 in the name of Tanu
Sharma (opposite party no.2) and the second
draft is of Rs.6,00,000/- dated 24.8.2021
bearing Draft No.911253 in the name of Tanu
Sharma (opposite party no.2). The total sum of
two drafts is Rs.15,00,000/-. The same has
been handed over to opposite party no.2 Tanu
Sharma by the applicants before this Court
which was acknowledged by Sri Dheeraj
Singh (Bohra), learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and Sri Arunendra Kumar Singh,
learned AGA. The photostat copy of both the
drafts is being kept on the record in the file of
the case as well as in the file of learned AGA.

4. Opposite party no.2 Tanu Sharma has
stated before the Court that she will withdraw
all criminal and civil cases filed against Vipin
Kumar, his father Pramod Kumar (applicant
no.1) and his family members pending before
any court of law and in future also she will not
file any case against them.
9 All Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
905

5. The same assurance has been given by
the father of Tanu Sharma namely Sri Satya
Prakash Sharma.

6. Sri Pramod Kumar and his son Vipin
Kumar have also stated before this Court that
from today they will also not file any criminal
or civil case against Tanu Sharma and her
father Sri Satya Prakash Sharma or against any
family members before any court of law and
withdraw all criminal and civil cases filed
against Tanu Sharma, Satya Prakash Sharma
and other family members in any court of law.

7. Vipin Kumar and Tanu Sharma
jointly state before the Court that from today
they will live separately and live their
independent life and nobody will interfere in
any manner in their peaceful life and they will
be free to live independently on their own
sweet will anywhere they wants.

8. Learned counsel for the parties has
drawn the attention of this Court and placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in support of their case.

(i) B.S. Joshi Vs. State of
Haryana & Others 2003 (4) ACC 675.

(ii) Gian Ssingh Vs. State of
Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303.

(iii) Dimpey Gujral And Others
Vs.
Union
Territory
Through
Administrator 2013 (11) SCC 697.

(iv) Narendra Singh And Others
Vs. State of Punjab And Others 2014 (6)
SCC 466.

(v)
Yogendra
Yadav
And
Others Vs. State of Jharkhand 2014 (9)
SCC 653.

9. Summarizing the ratio of all the
above cases the latest judgment pronounced
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Parbatbhai
Aahir
@
Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State
of Gujarat & Anr,; reported in (2017) 9
SCC 641 and in paragraph no.16, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the
broad principles with regard to exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the
case of compromise/settlement between the
parties. Which emerges from precedent of
the subjects as follows:-

i. "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 recognizes and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court.

ii.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.

iii.
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;
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

iv. 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;

v. 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;

vi. 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
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;

vii. 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 in so far as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash
is concerned;

viii. Criminal cases involving
offences which arises 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;

ix. 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

x. There is yet an exception to the
principle set out in propositions (viii) and
(ix) above. Economic offences involving
the financial and economic well-being 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."

10. The Apex Court has also laid
down the guidelines where the criminal
proceedings
could
be
interfered
and
quashed in exercise of its power by the
High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P.
Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960
S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State
of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and
another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.

11. From the aforesaid decisions the
Apex Court has settled the legal position
for quashing of the proceedings at the
initial stage. The test to be applied by the
court
is
to
whether
uncontroverted
allegation as made prima facie establishes
9 All Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati Vs. State of U.P.
907
the offence and the chances of ultimate
conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing criminal
proceedings to be continue. In S.W.
Palankattkar & others Vs. State of
Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
quashing of the criminal proceedings is an
exception than a rule. The inherent powers
of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C
itself envisages three circumstances under
which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under
the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. The power of
High Court is very wide but should be
exercised very cautiously to do real and
substantial justice for which the court alone
exists.

12. With the assistance of the
aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the
nature and gravity and the severity of the
offence which are more particularly is
matrimonial private dispute and differences
it is deem proper and meet to the ends of
justice.
The
proceeding
of
the
aforementioned case be quashed.

13.

The
present
482
Cr.P.C.
application stands allowed. Keeping in
view the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the above referred judgment
and in view of the statement/compromise
made by Vipin Kumar as well as opposite
party no.2 and the observation made above,
the entire proceedings of Case No.14943 of
2020 (Pramod Kumar and others vs. State),
arising out of case crime no.29 of 2020,
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354,
354B, 376, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.
Act, P.S. Mahila Thana District Meerut is
hereby quashed and both the parties are
free to live their independent life.

14. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

15. The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2021)09ILR A907
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 2796 of 2021

Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ajay "Madhavan"

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 494,495,416,420,504,506 -
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 198 - Prosecution for offences
against marriage - Section 155(4) - Where
a case relates to two or more offences of
which at least one is cognizable, the case
shall be deemed to be a cognizable case,
notwithstanding that the other offences
are non-cognizable.(Para - 9)

Accused - wife of deceased husband committed
the offences - solemnized second marriage with
the
complainant's
brother/deceased
by
concealing her first marriage - after his death