# Ram Kailash Tripathi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 623
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-11
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 21113 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pankaj Naqvi, Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kailash-tripathi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44879
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law -Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 - quashing
of criminal proceeding in respect of noncompoundable
offences-heinous
and
serious offences cannot be quashed on
the
basis
of
settlement/compromise
under section 482 Cr.P.C./Article 226only offences which are private in nature
having no impact on the society can be
quashed-exercise
of
power
under
Section 482Cr.P.C./Article 226 can not
be permitted, when the matter is under
investigation. (Para 3,4,5,6)

Writ petition dismissed (E-6)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

3 All. Ram Kailash Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
623

42. Keeping in view provisions of
Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellant is
directed to furnish a personal bond and
two sureties before Trial Court to its
satisfaction, which shall be effective for a
period of six months, along with an
undertaking that in event of filing of
Special Leave Petition against instant
judgment or for grant of leave, appellant
on receipt of notice thereof shall appear
before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

43. Lower Court record along-with a
copy of this judgment be sent back
immediately to District Court concerned
and also copy of this judgment be sent to
Superintendent Jail concerned through
District Judge concerned for immediate
compliance and further necessary action.

44. Before parting, we provide that
Sri Uttar Kumar Goswami, Advocate,
who has appeared as Amicus Curiae for
appellant in present Jail Appeal, shall be
paid counsel's fee as Rs. 10,000/-. State
Government
is
directed
to
ensure
payment
of
aforesaid
fee
through
Additional Legal Remembrancer, posted
in the office of Advocate General at
Allahabad, without any delay and, in any
case, within one month from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.
----------

(2019)11ILR A623

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ NAQVI, J.
THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 21113 of 2019

Ram Kailash Tripathi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Chandra Pal Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law -Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 - quashing
of criminal proceeding in respect of noncompoundable
offences-heinous
and
serious offences cannot be quashed on
the
basis
of
settlement/compromise
under section 482 Cr.P.C./Article 226only offences which are private in nature
having no impact on the society can be
quashed-exercise
of
power
under
Section 482Cr.P.C./Article 226 can not
be permitted, when the matter is under
investigation. (Para 3,4,5,6)

Writ petition dismissed (E-6)

List of cases cited:-

1. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2012(10)
SCC 303

2. Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6
SCC 466

3. State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.(3
Judges),AIR 2019 SC 1296

4. State of Rajasthan Vs. Shambhu Kewat
(2014) 4 SCC 149

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Chandra Pal Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.G.A.

2. This writ petition has been filed,
seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the
respondent concerned, not to arrest the
petitioners, with a further prayer for
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
quashing
the
impugned
FIR
dated
15.7.2019 registered as Case Crime no.
0559 of 2019, under Sections 376, 452,
323, 506 IPC, P.S. Handiya, District
Prayagraj (Allahabad).

3. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioners that as parties have
amicably settled their dispute, victim
herself filed an application to the
Superintendent of Police that the FIR was
lodged on false allegations, no offences
are made out, FIR be quashed, in the light
of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
2012(10) SCC 303 and Narinder Singh
vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

4. The Apex Court in State of M.P.
Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (3 Judges),
AIR 2019 SC 1296, while resolving the
conflict between Narinder Singh (supra)
and State of Rajasthan Vs. Shambhu
Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149, as regards
quashment of proceedings under Article
226 / Section 482 CrPC on the ground of
compromise / settlement, held as under: -

"10. Now so far as the decision
of this Court in the case of Narinder
Singh (supra) is concerned, this Court in
paragraph 29.6 admitted that the offences
under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences
and therefore are to be generally treated
as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone. However,
this Court further observed that 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.
Its further corroboration with the medical
evidence or other evidence is to be seen,
which will be possible during the trial
only. Hence, the decision of this case in
the case of Narinder Singh (supra) shall
be of no assistance to the accused in the
present case.

11. ...

12. ...

13. 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:

i) 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;

ii) 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;

iii) 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;

iv) 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
3 All. Ram Kailash Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
625
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 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;

v) while exercising the power
under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the criminal proceedings in respect of
non-compoundable 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."

5. The upshot of the above legal
position
is
that
non-compoundable
offences can be quashed under Article
226 of Constitution of India/ 482 CrPC,
which
are
overwhelmingly
and
predominantly of civil character arising
out
of
commercial
transactions,
matrimonial / family disputes and parties
have resolved their disputes amicably, as
such offences are private in nature having
no impact on the society. But heinous and
serious
offences
involving
mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity etc and the offences under the
special
statutes
like
Prevention
of
Corruption Act or offences committed by
public servants while working in that
capacity cannot be quashed on the basis
of settlement / compromise. However,
where the High Court finds that these
offences are merely incorporated without
any material to support, it can quash the
proceedings relating to such offences. For
this purpose, it would be open for the
High Court to examine whether the
materials collected, if proved, would lead
to framing of charge. This exercise is only
permissible, when a charge sheet is filed
or a charge is framed and / or during the
trial, not when the matter is under
investigation.

6. In the present case, an offence of rape
is alleged to have been committed by the
accused, matter is still under investigation,
FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage on
the basis of settlement/ compromise between
the parties, as the alleged offence is heinous
and against the society.

7. The writ petition is dismissed.
----------
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2019)11ILR A626

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

First Appeal No. 40 of 2011
connected with
First Appeal No. 107 of 2011
with
First Appeal No. 157 of 2016

Prachi ...Appellant
Versus
Shailendra Kumar ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rakesh Pandey, Sri Vishnu Pratap
Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri
Ghanshyam
Dwivedi,
Sri
M.S.
Pipersania

A. Civil Law-Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 24 - Maintenance pendente lite -
u/s 125 Cr.P.C. - Inspite of award of
maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.-
wife can seek maintenance under section
24 of Act 1955 - Scope of section 24 of
Hindu
Marriage
Act,
1955
is
not
circumscribed by section 125 Cr.P.C.

Held:- There is no prohibition contained in
section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
whereunder maintenance can be denied on
account of an order of maintenance already
passed under section 125 Cr.P.C. To the
contrary, read together, maintenance awarded
under section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be adjusted in
the amount of maintenance awarded under
section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
(Para 39)

Appellant being legally wedded wife of
plaintiff, not having any independent source of
income, is therefore entitled to maintenance
under section 24 of Act 1955 irrespective of
order passed under section 125 Cr.P.C. in her
favor. (Para 39)

B. Civil Law-Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 12(1)(c) - Divorce - Fraud -
Pleadings - Order VI Rule 4 C.P.C.-
Particulars to be given - Plaintiff must
duly plead as to how 'fraud' was
committed upon him by giving exact
date and specific particulars.

Once the ground of fraud played in the
settlement of marriage, was sought to be set
up by the plaintiff, it was incumbent upon him
to categorically plead how the marriage came
to be finalized between parties and by whom
by giving exact date and specific particulars -
Plaint of divorce petition completely silent as
to how 'fraud' was committed upon the
plaintiff.

Held:-Plaintiff failed to plead that the marriage
of parties was got solemnized by playing
fraud. (Para 30, 31)

C. Civil Law-Code of Civil Procedura,1908 -
Order VI Rule 4 - Fraud - Pleadings - If
specific particulars of fraud not given -
Consequence - Court cannot consider the
issue of fraud as no amount of evidence
can be looked into until and unless a fact
has been pleaded. (Para 31)

First Appeal partly allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited: -

1.
Hirachand
Srinivas
Managaonkar
Vs
Sunanda (2001) 4 SCC 125

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. First appeal No. 40 of 2011
(Prachi Vs. Shailendra Kumar) has been
filed by appellant Prachi, challenging
Judgement dated 4.12.2010 and Decree
dated 22.12.2010, passed by Principal
Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in
Matrimonial Case No. 37 of 2002
(Shailendra Kumar Vs. Prachi) under