# Rohit Bhati @ Rohit Pratap Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 658
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 8512 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rohit-bhati-rohit-pratap-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47285
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
482
-
Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506 & Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Section 3⁄4 -quashing of entire criminal
proceeding-parties
having
decided
to
settle
the
matter
amicably
amongst
themselves, no useful purpose would be
served
in
continuing
with
the
proceedings-High Court is empowered to
quash criminal proceedings of FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent
power, in case the parties have arrived at
settlement
agreement
of
their
matrimonial disputes, and Section 320
Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers
u/s 482.(Para 1 to 12)

B. High Court may quash proceedings if in
its view, because of 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.The criminal
cases having predominatingly civil flavour
stand on different footing for the purpose
of quashing, particulary the offences
arising
from
commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
civil
partnership
or
the
offences arising out of matrimonial or
family disputes where the wrong is
basically private or personal nature and
the parties have resolved their entire
dispute.(Para 5 to7)

The application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
referred to the statements under sections
200 and 202 and also the fact that the
statements recorded therein support the
allegations made in the complaint.

12. The law on the point being well
settled that at the stage of issue of process
the opinion which is required to be
recorded
by
the
magistrate
taking
cognizance of the offence is that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, the order passed by the court
below summoning the applicants does not
suffer from any infirmity, so as to call for
interference.

13. The application thus fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A658
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 8512 of 2021

Rohit Bhati @ Rohit Pratap Singh & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Abhishek Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
482
-
Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506 & Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Section 3⁄4 -quashing of entire criminal
proceeding-parties
having
decided
to
settle
the
matter
amicably
amongst
themselves, no useful purpose would be
served
in
continuing
with
the
proceedings-High Court is empowered to
quash criminal proceedings of FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent
power, in case the parties have arrived at
settlement
agreement
of
their
matrimonial disputes, and Section 320
Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers
u/s 482.(Para 1 to 12)

B. High Court may quash proceedings if in
its view, because of 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.The criminal
cases having predominatingly civil flavour
stand on different footing for the purpose
of quashing, particulary the offences
arising
from
commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
civil
partnership
or
the
offences arising out of matrimonial or
family disputes where the wrong is
basically private or personal nature and
the parties have resolved their entire
dispute.(Para 5 to7)

The application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. State Vs Rahit Bhati & ors.

2. B.S. Joshi Vs St. of Haryana & ors. (2003) 46
ACC Page 779 SC

3. Nikhil Merchant Vs C.B.I.(2008) 9 SCC 677

4. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr .(2012) 10
SCC 303

5. Narinder Singh Vs. St. of Punj. & anr.(2014) 6
SCC 466

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)
8 All. Rohit Bhati @ Rohit Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
659

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned
counsel for the applicants, Sri Bhuvnesh
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite party.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
to quash the proceedings related to Case
Crime No. 0721 of 2020 (State Vs. Rohit
Bhati and others) under Section 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.
Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad pending
before
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad.

3. On the previous occasion upon
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties that the matter relates to a
matrimonial dispute and that the parties
have amicably settled the dispute and have
filed a compromise before the court below,
the following order was passed.

"Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, Mr Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the private respondent
and learned AGA for the State.

It is contended that both the
parties have entered into compromise in the
court below. A short counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2
stating that she does not want to contest the
case against the applicants.

The parties are directed to appear
before
the
court
below
along
with
compromise within a week and the court
below shall submit report about verification
of compromise to this Court by 15.4.2021.

List this case on 15.4.2021
showing the name of Mr Bhuvnesh Kumar
Singh, as counsel for the opposite party no.
2. Until the date fixed no coercive action
shall be taken against the applicants
pursuant to impugned charge sheet dated
23.09.2020 arising out of Case Crime No.
0721 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act,
P.S. Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad pending
in the Court of CJM Ghaziabad."

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order
dated 26.3.2021, a report has been received
from
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
Ghaziabad 16.4.2021 in terms of which the
factum of the compromise between the
parties has been verified.

5. In B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana
& others1, it has been held that High Court
is
empowered
to
quash
criminal
proceedings of FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent powers, in case the
parties
have
arrived
at
settlement
agreement of their matrimonial disputes,
and Section 320 Cr.P.C does not limit or
affect the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Similarly in Nikhil Merchant Vs.
C.B.I.2, compromise was permitted and
criminal proceedings were quashed on the
basis of the compromise.

7. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and another3, it has been held thus :

"61...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
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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."

8. The inherent power of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide and
unfettered. In B.S.Joshi (supra), the powers
of the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings have been
upheld, where the dispute is of a private
nature and a compromise is entered into
between the parties, who are willing to
settle their differences amicably.

9. Thus, in view of the well settled
principles of law as laid down in B.S. Joshi
Vs. State of Haryana1 Nikhil Merchant
Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and
another2, Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab3 and Narinder Singh and others
Vs. State of Punjab And Another4, the
proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable
to be set aside.

10. The proceedings arise from a
matrimonial dispute, which is of a personal
nature. The parties having decided to settle
the matter amicably amongst themselves,
no useful purpose would be served in
continuing with the proceedings. Matter
deserves to be given quietus in the facts of
the case.
8 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
661

11. Considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the proceedings
related to Case Crime No. 0721 of 2020
(State Vs. Rohit Bhati and others) under
Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4
D.P.
Act,
P.S.
Kavinagar,
District
Ghaziabad pending before Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ghaziabad are hereby quashed.

12. The application stands allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2021)08ILR A661
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 10076 of 2021

Rajesh Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri SunilKumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari

A. Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 482 - Indian Electricity Act,
1910-Section 138-B, 152-quashing of entire
proceeding-applicant was not the owner of
the premises in question and the same was
already sold-the premises was mutated in
favour of the purchaser-offence in question
is compoundable and the applicant is ready
to settle the matter, no useful purpose
would
be
served
by
this
application
pending.(Para 1 to 9)

The application is disposed of. (E-5)

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

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava
learned counsel for applicant, learned
A.G.A. for State and Mr. Narendra Kumar
Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.2
Electricity Department and perused the
record.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to
quash the charge sheet dated 17.5.2016
along with entire proceedings in Case
No.1460 of 2018 (State vs Rajesh Singh)
arising out of Case Crime No.129 of 2016
under Section 138-B Indian Electricity Act,
P.S. Naini District Allahabad and also
quash the non bailable warrant dated
15.2.2021 which is pending in the court of
Special Judge (E.C. Act), Allahabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant is innocent and
peace loving and law abiding citizen and
abusively trapped in this criminal case
without taking information by the applicant
or tenants of the aforesaid premises. The
applicant has purchased the aforesaid
premises on 1.7.2014 and thereafter he has
sold the aforesaid premises to Jai Singh on
26.6.2015 by registered sale deed which
was registered in the office of Sub
Registrar, Karchhana in Bahi No.1 Jild
No.4184 Page No.23 to 100 Sl.No.5372 on
26.6.2015. He further submits that by the
order dated 16.9.2015 passed by the
Tehsildar Karchhana, District Allahabad
the aforesaid premises was mutated in
favour of the purchaser. Learned counsel
also submits that when the FIR was lodged
against the applicant under Section 138-B
Electricity Act, the applicant was not the
owner of the premises in question and the
same was already sold to one Jai Singh,
therefore, the present case cannot be lodged
against the applicant as he is not consuming