# Smt. Reeta Chaudhary & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1498
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-12-02
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 12600 of 2015
- **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-reeta-chaudhary-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43363
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section-482-Quashing of criminal
proceeding-on
basis
of
compromiseoffence u/s 452, 323, 504, 506 IPCLearned Magistrate-rejected application
on ground offence under section 452
being non compoundable-held-keeping
in view of guidelines of Apex Court in
Gyan Singh case-criminal proceeding
quashed.
Held: Para-9 & 12

## Text

1498
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
incumbent
must
have
worked
throughout from the date of initial
engagement
till
the
date
of
commencement of the Rules. In the
situation, the stand of the State is contrary
to the Rules and it amounts to adding and
reading certain words in Rule 4(1) which
have not been inserted by the legislature.
As the rules are applicable only to daily
wage employees, the Rules framing
authority was well aware that such
employee
could
not
have
worked
continuously throughout and therefore,
has clearly provided that the engagement
must be before 29.6.1991 and he is
continuing as such on the date of
commencement of the Rule.
6. Needless to observe here that
recently the State Government has issued
a Government Order dated 13.8.2015
whereby it has been provided that persons
working
on
daily
wage/work
charge/contractual basis in the department
of the State Government, its autonomous
bodies, public undertakings/local bodies,
development
authorities
and
Zila
Pancahyat, who were engaged upto
31.3.1996 shall be regularized.
7. In view of above, the opposite
parties are directed to consider the case of
the petitioners for regularization under the
U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages
Appointments on Group 'D' Rules, 2001
and in the light of law laid down in
Janardan case [supra] within a maximum
period of three months from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this
order.
8. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, the writ petition is
disposed of finally.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.
Application U/S 482 No. 12600 of 2015
Smt. Reeta Chaudhary & Anr.
Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Ram Surat Saroj
Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Manjeet Singh, Shambhu
Chopra
Cr.P.C.-Section-482-Quashing of criminal
proceeding-on
basis
of
compromiseoffence u/s 452, 323, 504, 506 IPCLearned Magistrate-rejected application
on ground offence under section 452
being non compoundable-held-keeping
in view of guidelines of Apex Court in
Gyan Singh case-criminal proceeding
quashed.
Held: Para-9 & 12
9. The parties have entered into
compromise and have decided to keep
harmony between them in future and to
live with peace and love. The trial is at
the initial stage of framing charges. The
evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It
has
not
even
started.
In
view
of
compromise between the parties, there
is a minimal chance of witnesses coming
forward in support of the prosecution
case.
The
chance
of
conviction,
therefore, appears to be remote.
12.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case as discussed
earlier in the light of aforesaid guidelines
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it
does not appear just and proper to
dismiss the present application only due
to the reason that the F.I.R. incorporates
3 All.
 Smt. Reeta Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1499
 one non-compoundable offence i.e. 452
I.P.C.
Case Law discussed:
(2012) 10 SCC 303; (2015) 8 SCC 307; (2014)
6 SCC 466; (2012) 10 SCC 303.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.)
1. The applicants have invoked the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. with prayer to quash
the entire proceedings of Case No. 1365
of 2012 (State Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.
772 of 2011, under Sections 452, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kasna, District
Gautam Buddh Nagar, on the basis of a
compromise
executed
between
the
applicants and opposite party no. 2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a
civil dispute arose between the parties in
respect of some landed property, which
also gave rise to lodging of an F.I.R. by
opposite party no. 2 against the applicants
under the aforesaid sections. However,
good sense prevailed between the parties
and they entered into a compromise
before Delhi High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre on 10.01.2014. An
application for compounding the offence
was filed before the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Buddh
Nagar, but the court below did not take
cognizance of that application on the
ground that Section 452 I.P.C. is a noncompoundable offence. The applicants
have approached this Court for quashing
the criminal proceedings on the basis of
the fact that compromise between the
parties has taken place and now there is
no dispute left between them.
4. The submission of learned
counsel for the applicants is that the
parties have settled the matter and they
have decided to keep harmony between
them to enable them to live with peace
and love. The compromise entered
between them records that they have no
grudge against each other and the
complainant / opposite party no. 2 has
specifically agreed that he has no
objection if the F.I.R. in question is
quashed. Further, both the parties have
undertaken not to indulge in any litigation
against each other in future. Therefore,
continuance of the criminal proceedings
in pursuance of the aforesaid F.I.R. will
be an exercise in futile and mere wastage
of precious time of this Court as well as
Investigating Agencies.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
has supported his submissions with the
verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court given in
case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
6. Learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no. 2 has not contested the
submissions of learned counsel for the
applicants and he also prays that the
criminal
proceedings
be
quashed.
Opposite party no. 2 has filed an affidavit
stating therein that he has no objection if
the aforesaid F.I.R. is quashed. He has
requested this Court that the criminal
proceedings
may
be
quashed
with
direction to the applicants to comply with
the terms and conditions stipulated in the
settlement dated 10.01.2014. However,
learned A.G.A. has brought to the notice
of this Court one recent judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the
case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Manish and Others (2015) 8 SCC 307
wherein the Apex Court has set aside the
1500
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order of Madhya Pradesh High Court by
which the Madhya Pradesh High Court
had quashed the criminal proceedings
under Sections 307, 294 read with Section
34 I.P.C. as well as Sections 25 and 27 of
the Arms Act in exercise of its power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground
that the disputes were amicably settled
between the parties.
7. In the aforesaid case of Manish
(supra), the Apex Court has considered
the law laid down in its earlier judgment
of Gian Singh (supra) and has held that
offences under Sections 307, 294 read
with Section 34 I.P.C. as well as Sections
25 and 27 of the Arms Act are such in
nature that by no stretch of imagination
those can be held to be offence between
private parties simpliciter. Such offences
have serious impact on society at large.
As these offences are definitely against
society, the private respondents will have
to necessarily face trial and come out
unscathed
by
demonstrating
their
innocence.
8. In so far as the case in hand is
concerned, the submission of learned
A.G.A. is that Section 452 I.P.C. is also a
non-compoundable offence having its
impact on society at large, hence in view
of the recent judgment of the Apex Court
the criminal proceedings cannot be
quashed.
9. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the record,
it appears that a civil dispute between
both the parties had culminated into a
criminal case under Sections 452, 323,
504. 506 I.P.C. The F.I.R. lodged by
opposite party no. 2 which is Annexure
No. 1 clearly shows that the allegations
against the applicants is only of scuffle
(hatha-pai) with opposite party no. 2,
using filthy language and threatening. No
serious injury has been caused to anyone.
The parties have entered into compromise
and have decided to keep harmony
between them in future and to live with
peace and love. The trial is at the initial
stage of framing charges. The evidence is
yet to be led in the Court. It has not even
started. In view of compromise between
the parties, there is a minimal chance of
witnesses coming forward in support of
the prosecution case. The chance of
conviction, therefore, appears to be
remote.
10. Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent
case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State
of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466 has
quashed the criminal proceedings under
Sections 307/324/323/34 I.P.C. on the
basis of compromise entered into between
the parties and has quashed the order of
Punjab and Haryana High Court by which
the High Court had refused to exercise its
extraordinary discretion under Section
482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the injury
suffered by the complainant were serious
in nature.
11. In Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 the three
Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has
laid down the guidelines regarding the
legal position as to in what circumstnaces
and in what type of cases such exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. can be invoked dehors Section
320 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing
of criminal proceedings as under:-
"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
3 All.
 Smt. Reeta Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1501
the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section
320 of the Code. Inherent power is of
wide
plentitude
with
no
statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in
accord with the guidelines engrafted in
such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse f 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 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
flavor 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
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."
12. Considering the facts and
circumstances of this case as discussed
earlier in the light of aforesaid guidelines
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it
does not appear just and proper to dismiss
the present application only due to the
reason that the F.I.R. incorporates one
non-compoundable offence i.e. 452 I.P.C.
13. Accordingly, the application is
allowed and the entire proceedings of
Case No. 1365 of 2012 (State Vs. Pankaj
Chaudhary and others), arising out of
Case Crime No. 772 of 2011, under
Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are
hereby quashed.
--------
1502
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP
SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
Writ-C No. -18086 of 2014
Morning Walkers Association & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Allahabad Cantonment Board .Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abu Bakht
Counsel for the Respondents:
Prashant Mathur, Satish Kumar Rai
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-19
(i)(d)-
Prohibition
on
morning
and
evening
walking in Cant. Area without pass-without
intention
of
interruption
of
right
of
movement-on
public
road-necessity
of
taking
pass-held
unhealthy
decisionwhenever such situation occurs-authorities
to take decision only after discussion from
the institute like High Court.
Held: Para-50 & 51
50. The aforesaid discussion is also
necessary for any action to be taken in
future as public convenience cannot be
overlooked. A person suffering from any
immediate serious ailment like a heartattack at midnight, would not obviously
be asked to wait upon to obtain a pass
for commuting on a road if he resides in
the vicinity to reach the hospital. This is
just one practical aspect of the matter
and there are many such shades which
require consideration including other
public conveniences.
51. It is for all the aforesaid reasons
that we hold that the petitioners are
right in their submission that they do not
require to be imposed with a condition of
obtaining
a
pass
from
the
military
authorities in the background and purpose
aforesaid. We also are of the opinion that
in case the Cantonment Board proceeds to
take any steps in future in the light of the
letter dated 7th January, 2015, it may
inform
to
the
public
at
large
and
particularly to institutions like the High
Court before taking up any such measures
for discussion so that the point of view of
public
convenience
may
not
be
left
unheeded in any of its dimension. The
respondents are therefore directed to act
accordingly.
Case Law discussed:
W.P. No. 3549 of 1997; AIR 1998 SC 431;
W.P. No. 4271 OF 2007; PIL No. 361 of 2012.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1. This petition has been filed by a
collective group of individuals describing
themselves as the Morning Walkers
Association through Sri Promod Kumar
Jain, a Senior Counsel of the High Court
accompanied by a couple of Senior
Counsels, Sri W.H. Khan and Sri V.M.
Zaidi and with the support of Sri G.S.
Hajela another counsel of this Court. Sri
Ram Chandra Gupta is the petitioner no.
6. They are all residents of adjoining
localities
in
the
vicinity
of
New
Cantonment at Allahabad. They submit
that they are regular morning and evening
walkers on the roads that fall inside the
New Cantonment area including the roads
that
are
accessible
to
the
public,
particularly Cariappa Road, Ponappa
Road and Lawrence Road.
2. Their morning walks were
interrupted by checkings carried out by
armed soldiers of the Indian Army at the
entry point and crossings of such roads
with an insistence to obtain a requisite
pass from the military authorities. This