# Sachin Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1222
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-06
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 11366 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51328
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
376 - Rape, The Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities)
Act,
1989
-
Section
3(2)(v) - where it appears to Court
that offence in question has not been
committed or where continuation of
legal proceedings would be an abuse
of process of law - Court can exercise
its powers to quash the proceedings -
when
considering
a
prayer
for
quashing
on
the
basis
of
a
compromise/settlement, if the Court
is
satisfied
that
the
underlying
objective of the Act would not be
contravened or diminished even if the
felony in question goes unpunished,
the mere fact that the offence is
covered under a ́special statute ́
would not refrain this Court or the
High Court, from exercising their
respective powers under Article 142
of
the
Constitution
or
Section
482CrPC. (Para -14)

(B) The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - Legal
Principles on High Courts' Extraordinary Powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Can be invoked
beyond Section 320 Cr.P.C.- Powers should
be exercised carefully considering nature
and effect of offence, seriousness of injury,
voluntary nature of compromise, conduct of
accused
persons,
and
other
relevant
considerations - High Court can examine
evidence to prove charges, even in cases
where
parties
have
entered
into
a
settlement after conviction - ultimate goal
of exercising extraordinary power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to secure the ends of
justice - No hard and fast rule can restrict
the High Court's powers to do substantial
justice, as a restrictive construction may
lead to grave injustice. (Para - 16)

Applicant faced charges of rape and SC/ST Act -
Investigating Officer found no evidence supporting
allegations - protest petition - summoned to face trial -
quashing of - Complainant stated in compromise she
leveled
allegations
due
to
misunderstanding
-
Complainant and accused reached settlement. (Para - 2
to 5 ,17)

HELD: - No evidence supports rape allegations against
applicant. Alleged victim admitted allegations were due
to misunderstanding and entered compromise without
coercion. Continuing proceedings would persecute both
parties.
Court
quashed
criminal
proceedings.
Continuance of proceedings would be abuse of
the process of law. (Para -18,19)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Charge Sheet on 26.11.1998, however, on
one pretext and other the trial could not be
concluded till date and during this period
two accused namely Akhilesh Singh and
Kamlesh Singh have already been expired,
this Court expects from the trial Court to
proceed in the matter expeditiously.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1222
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 11366 of 2023

Sachin Kumar Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A. Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
376 - Rape, The Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities)
Act,
1989
-
Section
3(2)(v) - where it appears to Court
that offence in question has not been
committed or where continuation of
legal proceedings would be an abuse
of process of law - Court can exercise
its powers to quash the proceedings -
when
considering
a
prayer
for
quashing
on
the
basis
of
a
compromise/settlement, if the Court
is
satisfied
that
the
underlying
objective of the Act would not be
contravened or diminished even if the
felony in question goes unpunished,
the mere fact that the offence is
covered under a ́special statute ́
would not refrain this Court or the
High Court, from exercising their
respective powers under Article 142
of
the
Constitution
or
Section
482CrPC. (Para -14)

(B) The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - Legal
Principles on High Courts' Extraordinary Powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Can be invoked
beyond Section 320 Cr.P.C.- Powers should
be exercised carefully considering nature
and effect of offence, seriousness of injury,
voluntary nature of compromise, conduct of
accused
persons,
and
other
relevant
considerations - High Court can examine
evidence to prove charges, even in cases
where
parties
have
entered
into
a
settlement after conviction - ultimate goal
of exercising extraordinary power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to secure the ends of
justice - No hard and fast rule can restrict
the High Court's powers to do substantial
justice, as a restrictive construction may
lead to grave injustice. (Para - 16)

Applicant faced charges of rape and SC/ST Act -
Investigating Officer found no evidence supporting
allegations - protest petition - summoned to face trial -
quashing of - Complainant stated in compromise she
leveled
allegations
due
to
misunderstanding
-
Complainant and accused reached settlement. (Para - 2
to 5 ,17)

HELD: - No evidence supports rape allegations against
applicant. Alleged victim admitted allegations were due
to misunderstanding and entered compromise without
coercion. Continuing proceedings would persecute both
parties.
Court
quashed
criminal
proceedings.
Continuance of proceedings would be abuse of
the process of law. (Para -18,19)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Daxaben Vs The St. of Guj. & ors., 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 936

2. Escorts Ltd. Vs CCE, (2004) 8 SCC 335

3. Ramgopal Vs St. of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531

4. Ramawatar Vs St. of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635
2 All. Sachin Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1223
5. K. Gupta Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1030

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

1. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar
Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned
A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State
and Sri Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party no.2.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the
applicant has sought quashing of the entire
proceedings of the Complaint Case No.39
of 2019: Kanchan Devi Vs. Sachin Singh,
arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 2018,
under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2)
(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
Police
Station
Sammanpur,
District
Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the Court of
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar
Nagar on the ground that the parties have
entered into a compromise.

3. The opposite party no.2 had filed
an application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. on 13.04.2018 alleging that the
applicant is a Police Constable and he came
to the complainant's house on 01.04.2017
at about 11.00 a.m. and raped her and
thereafter he repetitively raped her on
various occasions. After investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted a final
report dated 30.07.2018 stating that a Case
Crime No.82 of 2016, under Sections 279,
337, 338, 304-A I.P.C. was lodged in Police
Station Sammanpur, District Ambedkar
Nagar. A police team had gone to arrest the
accused persons and recover the stolen
vehicle, whereupon some accused persons
had resisted them in performance of their
official duties. The Investigating Officer
had lodged an F.I.R. No.37 of 2017, under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 353, 332, 336 I.P.C.
and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment
Act and Section 3 (I) (x) of Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
complainant works at the brick kiln of one
of the accused persons and she had filed the
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
on false allegations under his pressure. The
incident was not supported by any
independent witness.

4. The opposite party no.2 filed a
protest petition against the final report,
which was accepted by means of an order
dated 13.03.2019, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Ambedkar
Nagar and it was registered as a complaint.
After recording of the statements under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicant
was summoned for trial for offence under
Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by
means of order dated 23.08.2022.

5. The applicant has sought quashing
of
the
summoning
order
and
the
proceedings of the criminal case on the
ground that the parties have entered into a
compromise on 14.10.2023. The original
compromise
is
annexed
with
the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
wherein the opposite party no.2 stated that
she had lodged the F.I.R. due to some
misunderstanding, no party was guilty in
the matter and both the parties had agreed
to get the proceedings quashed by the
competent court. It is categorically stated in
the compromise that the parties are major
and the decision was taken without any fear
or coercion. The compromise has been
1224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
verified before a Notary Public and it has
also been signed by the learned counsel for
parties.

6. The opposite party no.2 has filed a
counter affidavit accepting the factum of
compromise and supporting the application
for quashing of the proceedings.

7. Sri Anurag Verma, the learned
A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State
has opposed the application and he has
submitted that the present case involves
allegation of commission of rape which is a
heinous offence and in view of the law laid
down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat
and others: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 the
proceedings of such a case cannot be
quashed on the basis of a compromise
between the parties.

8. In Daxaben (supra) an F.I.R. was
lodged under Section 306 I.P.C. by a cousin
and an employee of the deceased. The
complainant and the accused entered into a
settlement and the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahamdabad quashed the proceedings upon
an application filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. on this ground alone. The widow of
the deceased filed an application for recall
of the order which too was dismissed by
the High Court after recording that the
original first informant had pocketed a
hefty amount from the accused and he had
gone totally out of picture post allowing of
the
quashing
petition,
therefore,
the
application for recall of order was not
maintainable.

9. In appeal the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the High Court had erred in
declining the prayer of the widow of the
deceased for recalling an order passed
without hearing her only because the
original informant/complainant who was a
cousin and an employee of the deceased
had been heard. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court further held that "before exercising
its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
to quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or
criminal proceedings, the High Court has
to be circumspect and have due regard to
the nature and gravity of the offence.
Heinous or serious crimes, which are not
private in nature and have a serious impact
on society cannot be quashed on the basis
of a compromise between the offender and
the complainant and/or the victim. Crimes
like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and
even abetment to commit suicide are
neither private nor civil in nature. Such
crimes are against the society. In no
circumstances can prosecution be quashed
on compromise, when the offence is serious
and grave and falls within the ambit of
crime against society."

10. In Escorts Ltd. v. CCE, (2004) 8
SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that: -

"8. Courts should not place
reliance on decisions without discussing as
to how the factual situation fits in with the
fact situation of the decision on which
reliance is placed. Observations of courts
are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems
nor as provisions of a statute and that too
taken
out
of
their
context.
These
observations must be read in the context in
which they appear to have been stated.
Judgments of courts are not to be construed
as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and
provisions of a statute, it may become
necessary for Judges to embark into
lengthy discussions but the discussion is
meant to explain and not to define. Judges
interpret statutes, they do not interpret
judgments. They interpret words of statutes;
2 All. Sachin Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1225
their words are not to be interpreted as
statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd.
v.
Horton2
(AC
at
p.
761),
Lord
MacDermott observed: (All ER p. 14 C-D)

"The matter cannot, of course, be
settled merely by treating the ipsissima
verba of Willes, J., as though they were part
of an Act of Parliament and applying the
rules of interpretation appropriate thereto.
This is not to detract from the great weight
to be given to the language actually used
by that most distinguished judge,..."

9. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht
Co.3 Lord Reid said (All ER p. 297g-h),

"Lord Atkin's speech ... is not to
be treated as if it were a statutory
definition. It will require qualification in
new circumstances."

Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes
Ltd. v. Sandham (No. 2)4 observed: (All ER
p. 1274d-e) "One must not, of course,
construe even a reserved judgment of even
Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of
Parliament;" And, in Herrington v. British
Railways Board5 Lord Morris said: (All ER
p. 761c)

"There is always peril in treating
the words of a speech or a judgment as
though they were words in a legislative
enactment, and it is to be remembered that
judicial utterances are made in the setting
of the facts of a particular case."

10. Circumstantial flexibility, one
additional or different fact may make a
world of difference between conclusions in
two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly
placing reliance on a decision is not
proper."

11. The observations in Daxaben
(supra)
were
made
in
the
factual
background of the case that husband of the
appellant had committed suicide. The
deceased's cousin, who was also his
employee, had filed the F.I.R. and he had
taken hefty sum from the accused persons
to enter into a settlement and the
proceedings were quashed on the basis of
such settlement without hearing the widow
of the deceased. There is no evidence in
support of the allegation in the present
case. During evidence the Investigating
Officer had found the allegations to be false
and there is no evidence in support of the
allegations, except for the statement of the
victim herself and the victim herself has
resiled from the allegations and there is no
allegation of any monitory transaction
between the parties. Therefore, in view of
the law laid down in Escorts Ltd. (Supra),
the observations made in Daxaben (Supra)
will not apply to the present case.

12. In Ramgopal v. State of M.P.,
(2022) 14 SCC 531, the appellants had
abused and assaulted the complainant on
account of certain monetary disputes.
Appellant no. 1 had struck the complainant
with a pharsa, which cut off the little finger
of his left hand. Appellant 2 also struck
lathi-blows on the body of the complainant.
The appellants were thereafter committed
for trial under Sections 294, 323 and 326
read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The
Magistrate
had
convicted
the
appellants under Sections 294, 323 and 326
read with Section 34 IPC. During pendency
of the appeal filed against conviction, the
parties had reconciled their disputes and
sought quashing of proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. on this ground. The
High Court dismissed the application.
While allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -

"12.The High Court, therefore,
having regard to the nature of the offence
and the fact that parties have amicably
1226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
settled their dispute and the victim has
willingly consented to the nullification of
criminal proceedings, can quash such
proceedings in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482CrPC, even if the
offences are non-compoundable. The High
Court
can
indubitably
evaluate
the
consequential effects of the offence
beyond the body of an individual and
thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to
ensure that the felony, even if goes
unpunished, does not tinker with or
paralyse
the
very
object
of
the
administration of criminal justice system.

13.It appears to us that criminal
proceedings involving non-heinous offences
or where the offences are pre-dominantly of
a
private
nature,
can
be
annulled
irrespective of the fact that trial has
already been concluded or appeal stands
dismissed against conviction. Handing out
punishment is not the sole form of
delivering justice. Societal method of
applying laws evenly is always subject to
lawful exceptions. It goes without saying,
that the cases where compromise is struck
post-conviction, the High Court ought to
exercise such discretion with rectitude,
keeping
in
view
the
circumstances
surrounding the incident, the fashion in
which the compromise has been arrived
at, and with due regard to the nature and
seriousness of the offence, besides the
conduct of the accused, before and after
the
incidence.
The
touchstone
for
exercising the extraordinary power under
Section 482 CrPC would be to secure the
ends of justice. There can be no hard-andfast line constricting the power of the
High Court to do substantial justice. A
restrictive construction of inherent powers
under Section 482CrPC may lead to rigid
or specious justice, which in the given
facts and circumstances of a case, may
rather lead to grave injustice. On the other
hand, in cases where heinous offences have
been proved against perpetrators, no such
benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously
observed
by
this
Court
inNarinder
Singhv.State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466
and State of M.P.v.Laxmi Narayan, (2019)
5 SCC 688.

14.In other words, grave or
serious offences or offences which involve
moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on
the social and moral fabric of the society or
involve matters concerning public policy,
cannot
be
construed
betwixt
two
individuals or groups only, for such
offences have the potential to impact the
society at large. Effacing abominable
offences through quashing process would
not only send a wrong signal to the
community but may also accord an undue
benefit to unscrupulous habitual or
professional offenders, who can secure a
 ́settlement ́ through duress, threats, social
boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It
is well said that ́let no guilty man escape,
if it can be avoided ́.
* * *

19.We thus sum up and hold that
as opposed to Section 320 CrPC where the
Court
is
squarely
guided
by
the
compromise between the parties in respect
of offences ́compoundable ́ within the
statutory framework, the extraordinary
power enjoined upon a High Court under
Section 482CrPC or vested in this Court
under Article 142 of the Constitution, can
be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of
Section
320
CrPC.
Nonetheless,
we
reiterate that such powers of wide
amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in
the
context
of
quashing
criminal
proceedings, bearing in mind: -

19.1.Nature and effect of the
offence on the conscience of the society;

19.2.Seriousness of the injury, if
any;
2 All. Sachin Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1227

19.3Voluntary
nature
of
compromise between the accused and the
victim; and

19.4Conduct
of
the
accused
persons, prior to and after the occurrence
of the purported offence and/or other
relevant considerations."

(Emphasis supplied)

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
reversed the order of the High Court
rejecting the prayer for quashing of the
proceedings and had quashed the criminal
proceedings on the basis of a compromise
between the parties even after conviction of
the appellant for offence under Section 326
I.P.C.,
which
is
punishable
with
imprisonment which may extend up to life.

14. In Ramawatar v. State of M.P.,
(2022) 13 SCC 635, the FIR lodged under
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities Act), 1989 read with Section 34
IPC alleged that the appellant threw a brick
on the complainant and also made filthy
and slur remarks on her caste. There was a
civil dispute between the parties. The
appellant was convicted under Section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The appeal filed
against his conviction was dismissed by the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
Bench. During pendency of further appeal
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
complainant filed an application that the
parties had settled their disputes through a
compromise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that: -

"17... where it appears to the
Court that the offence in question, although
covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily
private or civil in nature, or where the
alleged offence has not been committed on
account of the caste of the victim, or where
the continuation of the legal proceedings
would be an abuse of the process of law,
the Court can exercise its powers to quash
the proceedings. On similar lines, when
considering a prayer for quashing on the
basis of a compromise/settlement, if the
Court is satisfied that the underlying
objective of the Act would not be
contravened or diminished even if the
felony in question goes unpunished, the
mere fact that the offence is covered under
a ́special statute ́ would not refrain this
Court or the High Court, from exercising
their respective powers under Article 142
of the Constitution or Section 482CrPC."

(Emphasis supplied)

15. Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of
Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030, is a
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in an appeal filed against a judgment
and order passed by an Hon'ble Single
Judge of the High Court of Delhi,
dismissing the application filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
proceedings under Section 376 of the Penal
Code, 1860 ('IPC') on the ground that the
parties had entered into a settlement. While
allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that: -

"13.It can thus be seen that this
Court has clearly held that though the
Court should be slow in quashing the
proceedings wherein heinous and serious
offences are involved, the High Court is
not foreclosed from examining as to
whether
there
exists
material
for
incorporation of such an offence or as to
whether there is sufficient evidence which
if proved would lead to proving the charge
for the offence charged with. The Court
has also to take into consideration as to
whether the settlement between the parties
is going to result into harmony between
1228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
them which may improve their mutual
relationship.

14.The Court has further held
that it is also relevant to consider as to
what is stage of the proceedings. It has
been observed that if an application is
made at a belated stage wherein the
evidence has been led and the matter is at
the stage of arguments or judgment, the
Court should be slow to exercise the power
to quash the proceedings. However, if such
an application is made at an initial stage
before commencement of trial, the said
factor will weigh with the court in exercising
its power."

16. The legal principles which can be
culled out from a collective reading of the
foresaid precedents, are that the extraordinary
powers of the High Courts under Section 482
Cr.P.C. can be invoked beyond the metes and
bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Such powers
ought to be exercised carefully in the context of
quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind
the nature and effect of the offence on the
conscience of the society; theseriousness of the
injury, if any, the voluntary nature of
compromise between the accused and the victim,
the conduct of the accused persons and the other
relevant considerations. Though the Courts
should be slow in quashing the proceedings
wherein heinous and serious offences are
involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from
examining as to whether there is sufficient
evidence which may lead to proving the charges.
The High Court can quash the proceedings even
in cases where the parties have entered into a
settlement after conviction. The touchstone for
exercising the extraordinary power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of
justice. There can be no hard and fast rule
restricting the powers of the High Court to do
substantial justice, as a restrictive construction of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may
lead to grave injustice.

17. When we examine the facts of the
present case in light of the aforesaid law, what
we find is that after registration of the F.I.R.
pursuant to an application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer had found that
the allegations levelled by the opposite party no.2
could not be established as no evidence could be
collected in support thereof. It was recorded in
the final report that the dispute had occurred
when a police party had gone to arrest the
accused and recover the stolen vehicle in
connection with Case Crime No.82 of 2016. The
complainant is an employee of one of the
persons accused in that case and she had lodged
the F.I.R. at the behest of that accused person to
put undue pressure on the police persons. In the
compromise, the complainant has categorically
stated that she had levelled the allegations due to
some misunderstanding and the applicant was
not guilty.

18. When there is absolutely no evidence
to support the allegation of rape by the applicant
and the alleged victim has herself stated in the
compromise that the offence was not committed
and she had levelled the allegations due to some
misunderstanding, that she is major and she
had entered into the compromise without
any fear or coercion agreeing for quashing
of the proceedings after a long drawn fullfledged trial the applicant will surely be
acquitted. In such circumstances, the
criminal proceedings will only result in
persecution of the applicant, as well as the
opposite party no.2.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid
peculiar circumstances of the present case,
I am of the considered view that the
continuance of the proceedings will only be
an abuse of the process of law and the
proceedings deserve to be quashed.

20. Accordingly, the application is
allowed. The entire proceedings of the
2 All. M/s Kutumb Marketing Co. Prop. Firm & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1229
Complaint Case No.39 of 2019: Kanchan
Devi Vs. Sachin Singh, arising out of Case
Crime No. 29 of 2018, under Section 376
I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police
Station Sammanpur, District Ambedkar
Nagar, pending in the Court of Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar are
hereby quashed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1229
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 12138 of 2017

M/s Kutumb Marketing Co. Prop. Firm &
Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Uday Shankar Tiwari, Sri Rajiv Lochan
Shukla, Sri Siddharth Niranjan

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Munna Pandey

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque due to
insufficient funds or stop payment -
Section 482 CrPC not applicable for
quashing complaint based on disputed
facts - Accused must prove defence at
trial. (Para - 12,15,16)

Complainant rented office space to accused -
Accused issued cheque - dishonoured due to
"payment
stopped"
-
Complainant
issued
statutory notice - accused replied, claiming
payment of Rs. 20,000/- in cash. (Para - 1 to
3)

HELD: - Ground raised by accused-applicants
for quashing of impugned complaint was based
upon disputed facts. Instrument in question
carried a presumption that it was issued for
discharge of debt or other liability, therefore,
the applicants were required to rebut the same
by leading their defence evidence. No forgery
established in documents. Court declined to
exercise inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C . (Para - 11 to 15)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1.
 Applicants
have
filed
this
application under Section 482 Code of
Criminal
Procedure
for
quashing
of
Complaint Case No. 3955 of 2015; titled
Vinay Kumar Mittal vs. M/s Kutumb
Marketing Company and another, filed by
complainant-opposite party no. 2, under
Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881.

2. Briefly, the facts leading to the
application are that complainant-Vinay
Kumar Mittal brought a complaint under
Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 against M/s Kutumb Marketing
Company,
a
Proprietorship
Firm
represented by applicant no. 2 namely Smt.
Meetu wife of Paritosh Srivastava, with the
averments that the applicant no. 2 is
Proprietor of the applicant no. 1-Firm and
is responsible for the conduct of business of
the Firm, and the complainant has given a
office bearing No. 608 S.L. Tower, Alpha
Commercial Belt Greater Noida, District
Gautam Budh Nagar, to the accused on
rent. The accused never paid the rent in
time and for the last two years, there is no
rendition of the rent account, and whenever