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

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 481
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-21
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 4392 of 2016
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajiv-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49230
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482- Victim
married the applicant out of her own free will,
leading the court to quash the proceedings-the
parties had already settled their disputeinherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to
quash criminal proceedings- even in certain
cognizable and non-compoundable offences-in
cases with a predominantly civil flavour, such as
those
arising
from
commercial,
financial,
matrimonial, or family disputes- if the possibility
of conviction is remote and continuation would
cause oppression and injustice.
Application allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
481
summarized to the effect that the question
of sanction is of paramount importance for
protecting a public servant who has acted
in good faith while performing his duty. In
order that the public servant may not be
unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of
an unscrupulous person, it is obligatory on
the part of the executive authority to
protect him.....

83. If the law requires sanction,
and the court proceeds against a public
servant without sanction, the public servant
has a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction
as the entire action may be rendered void
ab-initio."

26. Once the sanction for prosecution
was
refused,
the
investigation,
even
otherwise could not have been carried out
by an order under Section 156(3) CrPC as
in the present case. The petitioner appears
to be a busy body who himself is facing
several criminal cases, and he has been
fighting this case since 2007. The petitioner
must have been incurring huge expenses in
engaging counsels to contest this case
before the trial Court, this Court and the
Supreme
Court.
His
resources
to
fight/contest the litigation should be a
matter of investigation. There may be some
force in the submission raised by Mr.
Manish
Goyal,
learned
Additional
Advocate General that the petitioner is an
impostor who has been set up by the forces,
which are opposing Sri Yogi Adityanath,
the present Chief Minister of the State of
Uttar Pradesh, and the forces, which do not
want progress of the State of Uttar Pradesh
and India. It is for the State to investigate
the said aspect, however, this Court does
not want to say anything further or give any
direction in this regard.

27. With the aforesaid observations,
this petition stands dismissed with an
exemplary cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees
(One Lakh) to be deposited in the "Army
Welfare Fund Battle Casualties" within
four weeks from today, failing which the
same shall be recovered as arrears of land
revenue
from
estates/assets
of
the
petitioner.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 481
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 4392 of 2016

Rajiv Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashok Kumar, Sri Sachin Kanaujiya

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Chandra Bhan Dubey

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482- Victim
married the applicant out of her own free will,
leading the court to quash the proceedings-the
parties had already settled their disputeinherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to
quash criminal proceedings- even in certain
cognizable and non-compoundable offences-in
cases with a predominantly civil flavour, such as
those
arising
from
commercial,
financial,
matrimonial, or family disputes- if the possibility
of conviction is remote and continuation would
cause oppression and injustice.
Application allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. Mafat Lal & anr. Vs St. of Raj. report on 2022
LawSuit(SC) 463
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Gufran Shaikh @ Gani Munawwar Vs St. of
U.P. & anr., Application U/s 482 No.10258 of
2021 decided on 28.07.2022

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

4.
Parbatbhai
Aahir
@
Parbhathbhai
Bhimsinghbhai Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Gujarat &
anr., (2017) 9 SCC 641

5. Narinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Pun. & ors.
(2014)6 SCC 466

6. St. of Madhya Pradesh Vs Laxmi Narayan &
ors. (2019) 5 SCC 688

7. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs St. of Pun., (2008) 4
SCC 582

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Mr. Chandra Bhan Dubey, learned for
the opposite party no.2 has not appeared even in
the revised call.

2. Heard Mr. Sachin Kanaujiya, learned
counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Singh
Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and
perused the records.

3. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet
dated 25.06.2015 and the cognizance order
dated 30.07.2015 as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 36 of 2015
(State Vs. Rajiv Kumar), arising out of Case
Crime No.118 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366
and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act,
P.S. Doghat, District-Baghpat, Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Baghpat.

4. On 13.09.2022, the following order
was passed:-

"As per office report dated
13.09.2022, notice has been personally
served upon opposite party no.2.

Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has married
opposite party no.3 and they are living a
happy married life.

An FIR has been lodged by
opposite party no.2 (maternal uncle of
opposite party no.3) who is trying to ruin
the married life of the parties by not
appearing before the Court. In such a
situation and in view of various judgments
of the Hon'ble Apex Court, continuance of
proceedings in the present case would
amount to abuse of process of law.

In view of the above, let the
applicant as well as opposite party no.3 be
present before the Court on the next date.

List on 21.09.2022.

Interim order is extended till the
next date of listing."

5. In compliance of the order of the
Court dated 13.09.2022, the applicant,
namely, Rajiv Kumar and the opposite
party no.3, namely, Upasana are present
alongwith her son, who is four and half
years old, in the Court today, who have
been identified and signatures have also
been attested by learned counsel for the
applicant.

6. The rejoinder affidavit has been
filed by Mr. Sachin Kanaujia, learned
counsel for the applicant, in which,
deponent is Upasana, who is wife of
applicant.

7. On query being raised, the opposite
party no.3, namely, Upasana has stated that
she has married the applicant out of her
own sweet will and is living happy married
life. Out of their wedlock, they are blessed
with a male child, who is presently four and
half years old. As per her date of birth, she
was nearly 17 and half years old at the time
of marriage. She has also stated that her in-
3 All. Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
483
laws have accepted their marriage and she
is staying happily with them. She has also
stated that FIR has been lodged by her
maternal uncle, i.e. opposite party no.2,
who is trying to ruin the married life of
Upasana. She has further stated that she has
entered into compromise and deposed
before this Court, out of her free will,
consent and without any external pressure,
coercion or threat of any kind.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that on account of compromise
entered into between the parties concerned,
all disputes between them have come to an
end, and therefore, further proceedings
against the applicant in the aforesaid case is
liable to be quashed by this Court. In
support of his contention, learned counsel
for the applicant has relied upon the
judgment of this Apex Court in the case of
Mafat Lal and another vs. State of
Rajasthan report on 2022 LawSuit(SC)
463 and also relied upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Gufran Shaikh @
Gani Munawwar vs. State of U.P. and
another decided on 28.07.2022 passed in
Application U/s 482 No.10258 of 2021.

9. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute
the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar
that since the parties concerned have settled
their dispute as mentioned above, therefore,
he has no objection in quashing the
impugned criminal proceedings against the
applicants.

10. Before proceeding any further it
shall be apt to make a brief reference to the
case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein
the Apex Court has categorically held that
the compromise can be made between the
parties even in respect of certain cognizable
and non compoundable offences. The
relevant portion of the said judgment of the
Apex Court reads as follows:-

"57. 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
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 F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and 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 serious impact on society. Similarly,
any compromise between the victim and
offender in relation to the offences under
special
statutes
like
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
different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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, High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the
offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put
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
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends
of justice, it is appropriate that criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to
the above question(s) is in affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction
to
quash
the
criminal
proceeding."

11. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai
Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai
Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat
and
another,
(2017)
9
SCC
641,
summarizing the broad principles regarding
inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that
these
powers
are
not
inhibited
by
provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

12. The Apex Court in the case of
Narinder Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab and others reported in (2014)6
SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others
reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, has summed
up and laid down principles by which the
High Court would be guided in giving
adequate treatment to the settlement
between the parties and exercise its power
under Section 482 of the Code while
accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement with direction to continue with
criminal proceedings.

13. In the present case, no doubt
offence under the relevant sections 363,
366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of
POCSO Act are not compoundable under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained
by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's,
Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir's and
Laxmi Narayan's cases (supra), power of
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not
inhibited by the provisions of Section 320
Cr.P.C and FIR as well as criminal
proceedings can be quashed by exercising
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C,
if
warranted
in
given
facts
and
circumstances of the case for ends of
justice or to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court, even in those cases which are
not compoundable where parties have
settled the matter between themselves.

14. In the case of Madan Mohan
Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in
(2008) 4 SCC 582, the Apex Court
emphasized and advised that in the matter
of compromise in criminal proceedings,
keeping in view of nature of this case, to
save the time of the Court for utilizing to
decide more effective and meaningful
litigation, a commonsense approach, based
on ground realities and bereft of the
technicalities of law, should be applied.
3 All. Subesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
485

15. In the aforesaid judgments, the
Apex Court has categorically held that
compromise can be made between the
parties even in respect of certain cognizable
and non compoundable offences. The
present case is also a case where two
societal interests are in clash. To punish the
offenders for a crime, involved in present
case, is in the interest of society, but, at the
same time, husband is taking care of his
wife and in case, husband is convicted and
sentenced for societal interest, then, wife
will be in great trouble and their future
would be ruined. It is also in the interest of
society to settle and resettle the family for
their welfare.

16. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, as noted herein
above, and also the submissions made by
the counsel for the parties, the court is of
the
considered
opinion
that
the
victim/opposite party no.3, herself, has
stated before this Court that she has
married the applicant out of her own sweet
will and is living happy married life. Out of
their wedlock, they are blessed with a male
child, who is presently four and half years
old. Therefore, no useful purpose shall be
served by prolonging the proceedings of
the above mentioned criminal case as the
parties have already settled their dispute.

17. Accordingly, the charge sheet
dated 25.06.2015 and the cognizance order
dated 30.07.2015 as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 36 of
2015 (State Vs. Rajiv Kumar), arising out
of Case Crime No.118 of 2015, under
Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Doghat,
District-Baghpat, Additional District and
Sessions
Judge,
Baghpat
are
hereby
quashed.

18. The application is, accordingly,
allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs.

19. A copy of this order be certified to
the lower court forthwith.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 485
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 5106 of 2022
Along With
Other Connected Cases

Subesh Kumar Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
S.M. Singh Royekwar, Sumeet Tahilramani

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Anurag Kumar Singh, Narendra
Kumar Sharma, Romil Sagar

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure
- Sections 173 & 197-Allegations against
retired/serving public /police officers-who were
acting in discharge of their official duty when
investigation carried out-CBI filed closure reprt
after reaching to conclusion that it was suicideprotest petition-supplementary closure reportagain protest filed-Magistrate rejected second
final report-treated protest petition as complaint
case-no
prior
sanction
u/s
197
Cr.P.C.-
Magistrate should not have acted on guess of
the complainant- existence of overwhelming
material and compelling reasons is must before
summoning-complaint not disclose commission
of offence u/s302 and 120-B IPC-impugned
order set-aside.
Applications allowed. (E-9)