# Ravindra @ Pappu v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 28
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-24
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 5510 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-pappu-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53516
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

applicant under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act can be
quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis
of a compromise reached between the applicant
and the complainant.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section - 482, - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 304-B,
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections -
3, 4 - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. -
for quashing of Charge-sheet, Cognizance &
Summoning Order on the ground of settlement
- criminal proceedings arising in 2006 - offence
of harassment and dowry death - opposite
party no. 2 (brother of deceased) lodged an FIR
- investigation - charge-sheet - cognizance and
summoning order - trial starts - applicant
remained absconding throughout - trial court, in
2009, convicted and sentenced all co-accused
family members under Sections 498-A, 304-B
IPC and Sections 3/4 of the DP Act -
subsequent to conviction, applicant's parents
passed away - in 2025, applicant and opposite
party no. 2 entered into a compromise
agreement - however, court observed that the
applicant along with other accused family
members were involved in harassment and
dowry-related death of the complainant's sister
- trial court had already found the co-accused
guilty and convicted them, while the applicant
continued
to
evade
trial
and
remained
absconding - the guilt of all accused persons,
including the applicant, stood established by the
trial court's findings - the offence in question is
grave and heinous, involving mental depravity,
and is not a private dispute - it has serious
societal
implications
-
held
-
criminal
proceedings against the applicant cannot be
quashed merely on the ground of a subsequent
compromise, especially after conviction of coaccused - such quashing would defeat the ends
of justice - accordingly, the application is
dismissed. (Para - 15, 16)
Application Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Rajesh Kumari v. State of UP, 2024:AHC:26481
- Deepak Kumar and Another v. State of UP,
2024:AHC:135745 - Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 - Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 - Parbatbhai Aahir
v. State of Gujarat: (2017) 9 SCC 641.
7 All. Ravindra @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
29
LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Dowry Prohibition Act,

## Text

28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the cheque amount, but the trial court, after
considering the pleadings of the parties and
their relations and facts of the case to be
considered under law, has awarded only 15
percent as interim compensation, which
appears to be adequate at this stage.

15. The revisional court also, after
considering the grounds raised by the
revisionist and considering the findings
recorded by the trial court, has rejected the
revision. This Court does not find any
illegality or infirmity in the impugned
orders, which may call for any interference
by this Court.

16.
In
view
of
above,
this
application has been filed on misconceived
and baseless grounds, which is liable to be
dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
---------
(2025) 7 ILRA 28
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5510 of 2025

Ravindra @ Pappu ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anuruddh Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Dharmendra Nath Verma

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether criminal proceedings against the
applicant under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act can be
quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis
of a compromise reached between the applicant
and the complainant.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section - 482, - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 304-B,
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections -
3, 4 - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. -
for quashing of Charge-sheet, Cognizance &
Summoning Order on the ground of settlement
- criminal proceedings arising in 2006 - offence
of harassment and dowry death - opposite
party no. 2 (brother of deceased) lodged an FIR
- investigation - charge-sheet - cognizance and
summoning order - trial starts - applicant
remained absconding throughout - trial court, in
2009, convicted and sentenced all co-accused
family members under Sections 498-A, 304-B
IPC and Sections 3/4 of the DP Act -
subsequent to conviction, applicant's parents
passed away - in 2025, applicant and opposite
party no. 2 entered into a compromise
agreement - however, court observed that the
applicant along with other accused family
members were involved in harassment and
dowry-related death of the complainant's sister
- trial court had already found the co-accused
guilty and convicted them, while the applicant
continued
to
evade
trial
and
remained
absconding - the guilt of all accused persons,
including the applicant, stood established by the
trial court's findings - the offence in question is
grave and heinous, involving mental depravity,
and is not a private dispute - it has serious
societal
implications
-
held
-
criminal
proceedings against the applicant cannot be
quashed merely on the ground of a subsequent
compromise, especially after conviction of coaccused - such quashing would defeat the ends
of justice - accordingly, the application is
dismissed. (Para - 15, 16)
Application Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Rajesh Kumari v. State of UP, 2024:AHC:26481
- Deepak Kumar and Another v. State of UP,
2024:AHC:135745 - Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 - Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 - Parbatbhai Aahir
v. State of Gujarat: (2017) 9 SCC 641.
7 All. Ravindra @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
29
LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Quashing of proceedings under section 482
Cr.P.C. - Dowry Death - Compromise -
Quashing of Proceedings - Heinous Offence -
Absconding Accused - Mental Depravity -
Societal Impact.

CASE ARISING FROM
Charge sheet No. 4-A of 2006 dated 21.06.2006
and Summoning order dated 25.09.2006 issued
by trial court in Session Trial No. 116 of 2006 in
FIR No. 11 of 2006, Police Station Bewana,
District Ambedkar Nagar.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Sri Shri Anuruddh
Prasad.
Counsel for Respondent: - Sri Rajesh Kumar
Singh, AGA-1, Shri Pradeep Kumar Yadav.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. ⁠Heard Shri Anuruddh Prasad, the
learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned AGA -I
and Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav, the learned
counsel for opposite party no. 2 and
perused the record.

2. ⁠By means of the present
application filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for
quashing of the charge-sheet no. 4-A of
2006 dated 21.06.2006 filed in respect of
FIR No. 11 of 2006 under Sections 498-A,
304-B of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Bewana, District Ambedkar
Nagar and the cognizance and summoning
order dated 25.09.2006 by which the
accused was summoned to face the trial, on
the ground that the parties have arrived at a
settlement.
3.
⁠The
aforesaid
case
was
registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on
05.02.2006 by the opposite party no. 2
against the applicant, his parents, wife and
brother Arvind Kumar Yadav, stating that
the elder sister of the complainant had got
married to the younger brother of the
applicant
on
28.06.2003.
After
her
marriage, all the accused persons used to
harass her for demanding dowry of Rs.
50,000/- in cash and a Hero Honda
motorcycle. In the evening of 05.02.2006,
when
the
complainant
went
to
the
matrimonial home of his sister, he found
that his sister had been burnt to death. On
enquiry, no one told him anything.

4. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed ⁠against all the accused
persons for the offences under Section 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. It is mentioned in the
charge-sheet
that
the
applicant
was
absconding. Since the applicant was
absconding, the trial continued only against
the other co-accused persons, viz. the
applicant's father, mother, brother and
wife, and all of them were convicted and
sentenced by the trial Court by means of a
judgment and order dated 15.01.2009
passed by the Additional Session Judge
(FTC) Court No. 2, Ambedkar Nagar in
Session Trial No. 116 of 2006.

5. On 03.07.2025 the applicant and
the opposite party no. 2 have entered into a
compromise stating that after conviction,
the applicant's parents and younger brother
have died. It is stated in the compromise
that the opposite party no. 2 came to know
later that the applicant had no role in the
alleged incident and that he had gone out
on the day of the incident and had never
made any demand of dowry.
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. The judgment and order of the
trial court states that the father of the
deceased was examined as PW 1 and he
has supported the prosecution version and
has stated that the applicant also harassed
the deceased for dowry and was involved in
killing her. The opposite party 2, who is the
complainant was examined as PW 2 and he
also stated that the applicant had also
demanded
dowry
and
harassed
the
deceased for dowry, like all the other coaccused persons. Copies of statements of
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have been brought
on record alongwith a supplementary
affidavit.

7. ⁠For the aforementioned reasons,
the trial court found the accused persons
guilty of the offences under Sections 498A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
and has convicted them.

8. The opposite party No. 2 has
filed a short counter affidavit supporting
the prayer for quashing of the criminal
proceedings against the applicant on the
basis of compromise.

9. ⁠The learned AGA- I has
opposed the application and has stated that
the offence under Section 304B of the
Indian Penal Code is a heinous offence
which cannot be quashed merely on the
ground of compromise.

10.
⁠In
reply
to
the
above
contention,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant has placed reliance upon the
decisions of coordinate benches of this
Court in Rajesh Kumari v. State of UP:
2024:AHC: 26481 and Deepak Kumar
and
Another
v.
State
of
UP:
2024:AHC:135745, by which this Court
has quashed the offences under Sections
498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Acton the basis of
compromise arrived at between parties.
However, the issue that whether the
prosecution relating to an offence under
Section 304-B IPC can be quashed merely
on the basis of compromise, has not been
addressed in the aforesaid orders.

11. ⁠The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that criminal proceedings in
respect of serious and heinous offences
cannot be quashed merely on the ground of
compromise reached between the parties
in.....

12. In Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has referred to numerous
precedents and has concluded as under: -

"61. 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 FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the 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
7 All. Ravindra @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
31
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
a
serious
impact
on
society.
Similarly, any compromise between the
victim and the offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like the
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
a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising
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, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceedings if in its
view, because of the compromise between
the offender and the victim, the possibility
of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put
the 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 the
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends
of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to
the above question(s) is in the affirmative,
the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction
to
quash
the
criminal
proceeding."

13. In Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab:
(2014)
6
SCC
466,
after
considering
the
decision
in Gian
Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
summed up the principles and reiterated
that Such a power is not to be exercised in
those prosecutions which involve 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. Even in
cases involving the offence punishable
under
Section
307
IPC,
where
the
conviction is already recorded by the trial
court, mere compromise between the
parties would not be a ground to accept the
same resulting in acquittal of the offender
who has already been convicted by the trial
court.

14. In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State
of Gujarat: (2017) 9 SCC 641, after
considering a catena of decisions on the
point,
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
summarised the following propositions: -

"(1) Section 482 CrPC 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 recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court.

(2)
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
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 CrPC. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(7) 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 insofar as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash
is concerned.

(8) Criminal cases involving
offences which arise 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.

(9) 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

(10) There is yet an exception to
the principle set out in Propositions (8) and
(9) 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."

15. In the present case, the
applicant and 4 other members of his
family were accused of harassing and
killing the sister of the complainant -
opposite party no. 2 for dowry. During the
trial, all the witnesses made similar
allegations against all the accused persons.
The Trial Court found all the other accused
guilty and convicted them, while the
applicant continued to evade the trial and
remained absconding. The guilt of all the
7 All. Syed Raza Abbas Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
33
accused persons against whom the
same allegations were made as the
applicant, has been established by the order
of the trial court and all the other
accused persons have been convicted.
The offence in question is certainly a
serious and heinous offence of mental
depravity which is not a private
offence and it has a serious adverse
impact on the society, the commission
whereof has already been established
by the judgment and order dated
15.01.2009 passed by the Additional
Session Judge (FTC) Court No. 2,
Ambedkar Nagar in Session Trial No. 116
of 2006.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts,
the criminal proceedings against the
applicant cannot be quashed merely on the
ground that subsequent to conviction and
sentence of the co-accused persons, a
compromise has been reached between the
applicant and the complainant, who is the
brother of the deceased, as this would
defeat the ends of justice.

17. ⁠In view of the foregoing
discussions, the application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal
proceedings on the ground of compromise,
is dismissed.
---------
(2025) 7 ILRA 33
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5838 of 2025

Syed Raza Abbas ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Applicant:
Rakesh Kumar, Agendra Sinha

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
Magistrate
was
justified
in
dropping proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
despite allegations of illegal dispossession and
pending civil litigation, and
whether the
revisional and subsequent orders suffer from
legal infirmity.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section - 145, 145(1),
145(4), 146, 482, - Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section - 528 -
Application
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
-
Challenging the validity of an order passed by
the Addl. City Magistrate, Lucknow, which had
closed proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
concerning a property dispute, citing absence of
breach of peace and pendency of a civil suit -
Application concerning possession of a Kothari -
proceeding initiated under section 145 of Cr.P.C.
- alleged illegal dispossession and title dispute -
Magistrate court found that, no breach of peace,
and title dispute can be decided by the
adjudication before the Civil Court - hence,
proceedings was dropped - Criminal Revision -
dismissed - present application - court noted
that no breach of peace had occurred in over
two decades and emphasized that Section 145
Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent disturbances, not
adjudicate ownership and Civil Suits have been
filed by both parties - held - when civil suits are
pending and if there is no likelihood of causing a
breach of peace, the Magistrate would not be
justified in exercising the power under section
145 Cr.P.C. - consequently, the court found no
error in the Magistrate's decision and rightly
dismissed the application under section 145
Cr.P.C. being lacking merit - accordingly,
present application is dismissed. (Para - 13, 14,
18)
Application Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
R.H. Bhutani v. Ms. Man. J. Desai (AIR 1968 SC
144) - Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P.