# Rajnu v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 602 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2024-04-23 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 3694 of 2024 - **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajnu-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51843 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 504 & 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3/4 - Application for Quashing Proceedings - Compromise in POCSO Case - NonCompoundable Offences The applicant, Rajnu, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1177 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 236/2021 under Sections 363, 366, 504, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Mall, District Lucknow, based on a compromise between the parties. The applicant, previously denied quashing of the charge sheet and summoning order by a Coordinate Bench on 14.12.2022, claimed false implication due to village rivalry. The St. opposed, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs St. of Gujarat ((2017) 9 SCC 641), which prohibits quashing serious offenses like those under the POCSO Act on the basis of compromise. Held: The court rejected the application, finding that the allegations prima facie disclosed a cognizable offense and that quashing based on compromise was impermissible under Parbatbhai Aahir. The court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised cautiously to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, and 4 All. Rajnu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 603 no exceptional grounds existed for interference. The applicant was directed to raise defenses during trial. List of Cases cited: ## Text 602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 17. 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 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. 18. 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. 19. The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the complaint case, summoning order and the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer made for quashing is refused. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage. 20. In view thereof, the present application lacks merit and substance and is hereby rejected. ---------- (2024) 4 ILRA 602 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 23.04.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J. Application U/S 482. No. 3694 of 2024 Rajnu ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Sushil Kumar Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 504 & 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3/4 - Application for Quashing Proceedings - Compromise in POCSO Case - NonCompoundable Offences The applicant, Rajnu, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1177 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 236/2021 under Sections 363, 366, 504, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Mall, District Lucknow, based on a compromise between the parties. The applicant, previously denied quashing of the charge sheet and summoning order by a Coordinate Bench on 14.12.2022, claimed false implication due to village rivalry. The St. opposed, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs St. of Gujarat ((2017) 9 SCC 641), which prohibits quashing serious offenses like those under the POCSO Act on the basis of compromise. Held: The court rejected the application, finding that the allegations prima facie disclosed a cognizable offense and that quashing based on compromise was impermissible under Parbatbhai Aahir. The court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised cautiously to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, and 4 All. Rajnu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 603 no exceptional grounds existed for interference. The applicant was directed to raise defenses during trial. List of Cases cited: 1. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Vs St. of Guj., (2017) 9 SCC 641 2. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Punj., AIR 1960 SC 866 3. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 4. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri) 192 5. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd. Saraful Haq, (2005) SCC (Cri) 283 6. S.W. Palankattkar Vs St. of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168 (Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.) 1. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Om Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No.1 and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant, namely-Rajnu, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Crl. Case No.1177 of 2022; State vs. Rajnu arising out of Crime No.236/2021 under Section 363, 366, 504 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police StationMall, District-Lucknow pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.1, Lucknow and allow the instant application in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case due village rivalry. He further submits that the applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.9387/2022 for quashing of the charge sheet, summoning order and entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.12.2022. He further submits that now the parties have entered into a compromise and do not want to prosecute the present case on the basis of compromise entered into parties, thus, he submits that the present application may be allowed and the proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No.1 vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned Counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties are praying for quashing of the aforesaid case which has been registered under Section 363, 366, 504 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which is against the mandate given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr,; reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, thus, he submits that the proceedings registered under the provisions of the POCSO Act cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. He further submits that case is pending in the concerned trial court and it is making endeavors to conclude the same, thus, this application is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. 604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 5. From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant. 6. At the stage of issuing process the trial court is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 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. 7. 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 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. 8. The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of charge sheet/summoning order/impugned proceedings is refused. There is no merit in this case. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage. 9. Thus, after considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this Court finds that the objection raised by learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No.1 appears to justified, the compromise on the basis of which, the parties are praying for quashing of the aforesaid proceedings is against the mandate given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra). Further, there is no other ground/avement made in this application by the applicant to quash the aforesaid proceedings, thus, this application lacks merit and substance and is liable to be rejected. 10. In view thereof, the present application is hereby rejected. ---------- 4 All. Yashpaul Chail Vs. State of U.P. 605 (2024) 4 ILRA 605 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. Application U/S 482. No. 5786 of 2016 Yashpaul Chail ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Akhilaeh Chandra Shukla Counsel for the Opposite Party: G.A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 18, 18A, 23(3), 23(4), 25(3), 27, 32 & 34 - Application for Quashing Proceedings - Non-Compliance with Mandatory Sampling Provisions - Non-Liability of Former Director The applicant, Yashpaul Chail, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1036 of 2014 under Sections 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Kotwali, District Muzaffarnagar, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. A Drug Inspector's complaint alleged that samples of Ofloxacin Tablets (Eloflox-200) taken on 21.01.2013 from M/s Kumar Medicine Distributors were substandard, as per the Government Analyst's report dated 09.07.2013. The applicant argued non-compliance with mandatory sampling provisions under Sections 23(3) and 23(4), and that he had resigned as director of M/s Elmac Remedies Pvt. Ltd. on 01.06.2009, before the alleged offense, thus not liable under Section 34. The St. countered that the applicant did not deny directorship in response to the show cause notice and that directors are responsible for substandard drugs. Held: The court, relying on Medicamen Biotech Ltd. Vs Rubina Bose ((2008) 7 SCC 196), St. of Rajasthan Vs Cadila Health Care Ltd., Cheminova India Ltd. Vs St. of Punj. ((2018) 17 SCC 275), Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs CBI ((2015) 4 SCC 609), Mehmood Ul Rehman, and Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs Adventz Investments ((2020) 4 SCC 211), quashed the proceedings against the applicant. The court found non-compliance with Sections 23(3) and 23(4), depriving the applicant of the right to challenge the Analyst's report, and confirmed his resignation absolved him of liability under Section 34. The proceedings were deemed an abuse of process. List of Cases cited: 1. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. Vs Rubina Bose, (2008) 7 SCC 196 2. St. of Rajasthan Vs Cadila Health Care Ltd., (2008) 7 SCC 196 (referenced in judgment) 3. Cheminova India Ltd. Vs St. of Punj., (2018) 17 SCC 275 4. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 5. Mehmood Ul Rehman, (2016) SCC OnLine SC 1152 6. Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 211 7. Amery Pharmaceuticals Vs St. of Rajasthan, (2001) 4 SCC 382 8. Maharashtra St. Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs St. of Maharashtra, (2014) 3 SCC 528 9. S.K. Alagh Vs St. of U.P., (2008) 5 SCC 662 10. Jethsur Surangbhai Vs St. of Guj., (1984) SCC (Cri) 466 11. Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2020) (Delivered by Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.