# Taufik Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 132
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-27
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 18295 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/taufik-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53039
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 482 - The Indian
Penal Coe, 1860-Sections 420, 323, 376,
344 - The Uttar Pradesh Conversion
Prevention Act, 2020-Sections 3/4- Any
compromise or settlement with respect to the
offence of rape, against the honour of a woman,
which shakes the very core of her life and
tantamounts to a serious blow to her supreme
honour, offending both, her esteem and dignity,
is not acceptable to this Court--- The object of
Act, 2020 is to provide for prohibition of
unlawful conversion from one religion to another
by misrepresentation, force, undue influence,
coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent
means--- It is clear that unlawful religious
conversion, particularly when achieved through
coercion,
fraud,
or
undue
influence,
is
considered a serious offence, in which the Court
cannot quash the proceedings on the basis of
settlement between the parties--- The alleged
offences under section 376 IPC and Section 3⁄4
(1) U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020, are
serious in nature and non-compoundable,
therefore, the instant proceedings cannot be
quashed on the basis of compromise between
the parties in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 48, 54 & 56)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,926 of 56,821. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39926 for what follows._

132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to condone the delay for not making the
complaint within the prescribed period of
limitation."

10. Thus in view of the judgement in
the case of Pawan Kumar Goel (supra) it
is clear that no additional accused can be
impleaded subsequent to filing of a
complaint once the limitation prescribed
for taking of cognizance of the offence
under Section 142 of the N.I. Act has
expired.

11. The issue as referred by the
learned Single Judge in the present matter
thus is answered is that "no additional
accused can be impleaded subsequent to
filing of a complaint once the limitation
prescribed for taking of cognizance of the
offence under Section 142 of the N.I. Act
has expired."

12. The reference is thus answered
as above.

13. The matter be listed before the
learned Single Judge having roster in the
week commencing 24.03.2025.
---------
(2025) 3 ILRA 132
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 18295 of 2021

Taufik Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ved Prakash Mishra
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Vijai Kumar Tiwari, G.A.

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 482 - The Indian
Penal Coe, 1860-Sections 420, 323, 376,
344 - The Uttar Pradesh Conversion
Prevention Act, 2020-Sections 3/4- Any
compromise or settlement with respect to the
offence of rape, against the honour of a woman,
which shakes the very core of her life and
tantamounts to a serious blow to her supreme
honour, offending both, her esteem and dignity,
is not acceptable to this Court--- The object of
Act, 2020 is to provide for prohibition of
unlawful conversion from one religion to another
by misrepresentation, force, undue influence,
coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent
means--- It is clear that unlawful religious
conversion, particularly when achieved through
coercion,
fraud,
or
undue
influence,
is
considered a serious offence, in which the Court
cannot quash the proceedings on the basis of
settlement between the parties--- The alleged
offences under section 376 IPC and Section 3⁄4
(1) U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020, are
serious in nature and non-compoundable,
therefore, the instant proceedings cannot be
quashed on the basis of compromise between
the parties in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 48, 54 & 56)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. B.S. Joshi & ors. Vs St. of Har. & anr.;
(2003)4 SCC 675

2. Gian Singh Vs St. of Pun. (2012) 10 SSC 303

3. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors. (2019) 5
SCC 688

4. Madhu Limaye Vs The St. Of Mah. (1977) 4
SCC 551

5. St. of Karn. Vs L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC
699

6. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692
3 All. Taufik Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
133
7. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr. (2017) 9
SCC 641

8. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar & anr.
Vs U.O.I.& ors. (2018) 10 SCC 443

9. Narinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Pun. & ors.
(2014) 6 SCC 466

10. Shimbhu Vs St. of Har.10 (2014) 13 SCC
318

11. Shyam Narain Vs St. (NCT of Delhi)

12. Baldev Singh v. St. of Pun.

13. Ravindra Vs St. of M.P.

14. Daxaben Vs St. of Guj. & ors. 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 936

15. St. of M.P. Vs Madan Lal (2015) 7 SCC 381

16. Rev. Stainislaus Vs St. of M.P. & ors. (1977)
1 SCC 677

17. Priyanshi @ Km Shamreen & anr. Vs St. of
U.P. & ors. Writ-C No.14288 of 2020, decided
on 23.09.2020

18. Smt. Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra &
anr.Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ-C No.57068 of
2014 alongwith connected matters, decided on
16.122014

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ved Prakash Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Vijai
Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 and Mr. Pramod Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the State and
perused the record.

2.
The
present
482
Cr.P.C.
application has been filed to quash the
charge-sheet
No.230
of
2021,
dated
07.05.2021 and the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.1340 of 2021, arising out
of Case Crime No.220 of 2021, under
Sections 420, 323, 376, 344 IPC and
Section 3⁄4 (1) U.P. Conversion Prevention
Act, 2020, Police Station Swar, District
Rampur.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an
FIR was lodged on 07.06.2021 at about
18:31 hrs by the opposite party no.2 against
Rahul @ Mohd. Ayan and two unknown
persons with the allegations that the
opposite party no.2 became friendly with
one Rahul through Facebook. Rahul took
mobile number of opposite party no.2 and
repeatedly used to call her. After nearly one
year of chatting through Facebook, the
alleged accused; Rahul proposed to marry
the
opposite
party
no.2.
From
the
conversation
through
telephone,
the
opposite party no.2 liked habits of the
aforesaid Rahul, therefore, she gave her
consent of marriage. On request of Rahul,
the opposite party no.2 reached Rampur
from where she was taken to Nawabnagar,
Police Station-Swar, District-Rampur, his
village and she was detained in his house
till six months. During the period of stay,
she came to know that the aforesaid Rahul
Kumar is a Muslim boy, therefore, she said
that it is not possible for her to marry him
as her religion is Hindu. On her refusal to
marry, the opposite party no.2 was badly
beaten by Rahul Kumar @ Mohd. Ayan s/o
Mohd. Jahoor and without her consent, he
forcefully established physical relations
with her. She was illegally detained for six
months and was sexually assaulted by him.
He also called his two friends, who
forcefully committed rape upon her. The
opposite party no.2 has managed to run
away from there and lodge the present FIR.
She also disclosed that Rahul @ Mohd.
Ayan exploited a number of girls by
trapping them becoming friendly through
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Facebook. She came to know about money
being given by Madarsa for exploiting of
Hindu girls, which was disclosed by him to
opposite party no.2.

4. During course of investigation,
statement of opposite party no.2 was
recorded under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. and she was also medically
examined. In her statements u/s 161 & 164
Cr.P.C., she has reiterated her version as
narrated in the FIR and disclosed the name
of two persons, i.e. Taufik Ahmad
(applicant herein), and Mohd. Riyaz, who
are brother-in-law and elder brother of
Rahul Kumar @ Mohd. Ayan. Taufik
Ahamd (applicant herein) and Mohd. Riyaz
have also committed rape upon her. After
investigation,
charge
sheet
has
been
submitted on 07.05.2021.

5. It appears that on the submission
as made by counsel for the applicant that
the parties have entered into compromise,
on 25.03.2023, the following order was
passed by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi,J. (since retired):-

"Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant is present. State is represented
through learned A.G.A.
 This Criminal Misc. Application
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
to quash the entire criminal proceeding
against the Criminal Case No. 1340 of
2021 in chargesheet no. 230 of 2021 dated
07.05.2021 in Case Crime No. 220 of 2021
u/s 420, 323, 376, 344 IPC and 3/5(1) of
U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020,
Police Station Swar, District Rampur.
 Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the parties have entered into
a compromise. The terms and conditions
have been entered into a compromise
which is Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter
affidavit.
 Learned counsel for the opposite
party has acknowledged the aforesaid facts.
 The parties shall appear before
the trial court and file compromise within
two weeks. Upon the said compromise
being filed before the trial court, it shall
after
due
identification,
verify
the
compromise. The trial Judge shall forward
to this Court a duly verified copy of the
compromise entered into between the
parties along with a copy of his order
verifying the compromise which shall be
before the next date fixed.
 List on 28.04.2022.

Till the next date of listing, no
coercive steps shall be taken against the
applicant in the aforesaid case crime.
 Office will ensure the compliance
of the aforesaid order and will transmit the
copy of the compromise along with copy of
the order to the trial court through the
concerned Session Judge within three
days."

6. The interim order so granted was
extended on 28.04.2022 and 06.09.2022.
Subsequently, when the matter was listed
on 15.03.2023, the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court listed the matter for hearing on
10.04.2023 and the interim order was
extended.

7. On 10.04.2023, as prayed by
learned counsel for the applicant, 15 days'
time was granted to file afresh compromise
and the interim order was extended.

8. The matter came up for hearing
before this Court on 31.08.2024 and on the
said date, counsel for the parties were
asked to address the Court on the issue as
to how compromise can be entered in such
3 All. Taufik Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
135
serious offence in which the FIR was
lodged.

9. On 30.09.2024, the case was
passed over on the illness slip of Mr. Ved
Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the
applicant and the matter was fixed for
hearing on 03.10.2024 at 10:00 a.m. On the
said date, after hearing the counsel for the
parties, judgment in the matter was
reserved.

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant, placing reliance upon the case of
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of
Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,
submits that to prevent abuse of process of
court and to secure ends of justice, the
entire proceedings as well as chargesheet
deserve to be quashed in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. as the parties have amicably settled
the
dispute
and
have
entered
into
compromise.

11.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant as well as counsel for the
opposite party no.2 submits that the
compromise has already been verified on
21.04.2022 as is clear from the letter of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.1,
Rampur.
Therefore,
the
entire
proceedings may be quashed.

12. On the other hand, Mr. Pramod
Kumar Singh, learned AGA has opposed the
prayer for quashing of the proceedings as
well as charge sheet of the case on the basis
of the compromise. He submits that some of
the offences, are non- compoundable and
heinous as well; they are not private/personal
in nature, affecting only the individuals but
they have impact on the society; they are
wrong to the society and as such neither the
offences can be compounded nor the
proceedings can be quashed on the basis of
compromise.

13. On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid submissions, learned A.G.A. states
that this Court may not exercise its inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the
present
case,
and
hence
the
present
application is liable to be rejected.

14.
I
have
considered
the
submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties and gone through the records of
the present application.

15. The short question which
requires consideration is, whether in the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. the charge sheet as well
as the entire proceedings can be quashed in
the cases involving an offence of Rape
punishable under Section 376 and Section 3⁄4
(1) U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020 in
view of the compromise entered into by the
parties?

16. Before scrutinizing the facts of the
present case and rephrasing the scope of powers
exercisable by this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C., it would be appropriate to understand
Section 482 Cr.P.C. which provides for saving
of inherent powers of High Court. Section 482
Cr.P.C., reads as under:-

 "Saving of inherent powers of
High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be
deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

17. The inherent power of the
Courts set up by the Constitution is a power
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that inheres in such Courts being Court of
record. This power is vested by the
Constitution itself, inter-alia, under Article
215 of the Constitution of India. Every
High Court has inherent power to act exdebito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice, for the administration of which
alone it exists or to prevent the abuse of the
process of the Court. Section 482 Cr.P.C.
saves inherent powers of the High Court
and it starts with non-obstante clause
"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to
limit or affect the inherent powers of the
High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary." The inherent power can be
exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (i) to
give effect to an order under the Code; (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of Court;
and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice.

18. This inherent power possessed
by the High Court is of wide plenitude,
with
no
statutory
restrictions.
The
limitations imposed on exercise of such
power are the self imposed restrictions.
Any provision of the Code cannot limit or
affect the inherent powers of the High
Court. But, this power, being extraordinary,
is required to be exercised sparingly,
carefully, with caution, and circumspection
and only when such exercise is justified by
the tests specifically laid down in Section
482 Cr.P.C. If there is any specific
provision in the statute for redressal of
grievance, the High Court, ordinarily,
refuses to invoke the extraordinary powers,
and also, in a situation with respect to the
matter where there is a specific bar of law
engrafted in the statute. The paramount
consideration to the exercise of this power
is to prevent the abuse of the process of the
Court. If any abuse of the process leading
to injustice is brought to the notice of the
Court, then the Court would be justified in
preventing injustice by invoking inherent
powers in absence of any specific provision
in the statute.

19. At this juncture, it would be
apropos
to
illuminate
the
following
principles laid down by a Three Judge
Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh
Vs. State of Punjab1 case:-

 "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 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 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
3 All. Taufik Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
137
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."
(Emphasis Applied)

20. The compendium of these broad
fundamentals structured in more than one
judicial precedent, has been recapitulated by
another Three Judge Bench of the Apex
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Laxmi Narayan & Ors.2 elaborating:

 "(1) 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;
 (2) 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; (3) Similarly, such power is not to be
exercised for the offences under the special
statutes like the 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;
 (4) xxx xxx xxx
 (5) While exercising the power
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private
in nature and do not have a serious impact
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."
(Emphasis Applied)
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21. Section 320 (1) of the Code
provides for compounding of certain
offences punishable under Indian Penal
Code (IPC ) specified in first two columns
of the Table, given there under, by the
persons mentioned in the third Column of
the table. Sub-Section (2) of Section 320 of
the
Code,
further
provides
for
compounding
of
certain
offences
punishable under Indian Penal Code
specified in the first two columns by the
persons specified in the third column of the
table given under Sub-section (2), with the
permission of the Court before which any
prosecution for such offence is pending.
Subsection (9) of Section 320, specifically
provides that, "No offence shall be
compounded except as provided by this
Section" i.e. Section 320 of the Code.

22. Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not
come in the way of exercise of inherent
power of the High Court for quashment of
criminal proceeding. The power of the
High Court for quashment of the criminal
proceeding is distinct and different from
the power given to a criminal Court for
compounding the offences under Section
320 of the Code. The inherent power of the
High Court is neither restricted nor
controlled by Section 320 of the Code. The
proceedings of the offences which are noncompoundable can also be quashed by the
High Court in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction, on the well settled principles,
but sparingly and with caution, forming an
opinion, on either of the two objectives of
securing the ends of justice and to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court. This bar
of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is attracted only
before the Criminal Court, where the prayer
for compounding is made. There, only
those offences which have been made
compoundable, can be compounded and the
offences which are non-compoundable
cannot be compounded in view of SubSection (9) of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

23. It is true that offences which
are
'non-compoundable'
cannot
be
compounded by a criminal court in
purported exercise of its powers under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. There is no patent or
latent ambiguity in the language of Section
320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider
interpretation and include such offences in
the docket of 'compoundable' offences
which have been consciously kept out as
non-compoundable.
Nevertheless,
the
limited jurisdiction to compound an offence
within the framework of Section 320
Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking
inherent powers by the High Court vested
in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

24. In B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State
of Haryana & Another,3 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that if for the
purpose of securing the ends of justice,
quashing of F.I.R becomes necessary,
section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a Bar
to the exercise of power of quashing. It
is, however, a different matter depending
on facts and circumstances of each case,
whether to exercise or not, such a power.
The High Court in exercise of its
inherent powers can quash criminal
proceedings or F.I.R or complaint and
Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or
affect the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C.

25. Similarly, in the case of
Madhu Limaye vs. The State Of
Maharashtra4, the Apex Court has held
that if for the purpose of securing the ends
of justice, quashing of FIR becomes
necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar
to the exercise of power of quashing. It is,
however, a different matter depending upon
3 All. Taufik Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
139
the facts and circumstances of each case
whether to exercise or not such a power.

26. In State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy5, considering the scope of
inherent power of quashing under Section
482, the Apex Court has held that in the
exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it
comes to the conclusion that the ends of
justice so require. It was observed that in a
criminal case, the veiled object behind a
lame prosecution, the very nature of the
material on which the structure of the
prosecution rests and the like would justify
the High Court in quashing the proceeding
in the interest of justice and that the ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law
though justice had got to be administered
according to laws made by the legislature.
The Court said that the compelling
necessity for making these observations is
that without a proper realization of the
object and purpose of the provision which
seeks to save the inherent powers of the
High Court to do justice between the State
and its subjects, it would be impossible to
appreciate the width and contours of that
salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also
noticed that there was no reasonable
likelihood of the accused being convicted
of the offence. What would happen to the
trial of the case where the wife does not
support the imputations made in the FIR of
the type in question. As also noticed by the
Court, later she has filed an affidavit that the
FIR was registered at her instance due to
temperamental
differences
and
implied
imputations. There may be many reasons for
not supporting the imputations. It may be
either for the reason that she has resolved
disputes with her husband and his other
family members and as a result thereof she
has again started living with her husband with
whom she earlier had differences or she has
willingly parted company and is living
happily on her own or has married someone
else on the earlier marriage having been
dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or
fails to support the prosecution on some other
similar grounds. In such eventuality, there
would almost be no chance of conviction.
Would it then be proper to decline to exercise
power of quashing on the ground that it
would be permitting the parties to compound
non-compoundable offences? The answer
clearly has to be in the "negative". It would,
however, be a different matter if the High
Court on facts declines the prayer for
quashing for any valid reasons including lack
of bona fides.

27.
In
Madhavrao
Jiwajirao
Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao
Angre,6 the Apex Court has held that while
exercising inherent power of quashing under
Section 482, it is for the High Court to take
into consideration any special features which
appear in a particular case to consider
whether it is expedient and in the interest of
justice to permit a prosecution to continue.
Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of
an ultimate conviction are bleak and,
therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing a criminal prosecution to
continue, the court may, while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case, also
quash the proceedings.

28. Thus, the Apex Court in B.S.
Joshi (Supra) case has come to the
conclusion that the High Court in exercise
of its inherent powers can quash criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint and
Section 320 of the Code does not limit or
affect the powers under Section 482 of the
Code.

29. In Parbatbhai Aahir @
Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
others Vs. State of Gujrat and another7,
the Hon'ble Apex Court again summarized
and laid down principles which emerged
from the precedents on the subject, in
paragraph no.16 of the judgment, which is
as follows:-

 "16. The broad principles which
emerge from the precedents on the subject,
may be summarised in the following
propositions:
 16.1 Section 482 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;
 16.2 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
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 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence
is non-compoundable.
 16.3 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;

 16.4 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;

16.5 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;

16.6 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;
 16.7
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 in so far as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash
is concerned;
 16.8 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;
 16.9 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
3 All. Taufik Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
141
 16.10 There is yet an exception to
the principle set out in propositions 16.8
and 16.9, above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic wellbeing 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."

30. In Parbatbhai Aahir (Supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
High Court was justified in declining to
entertain the application for quashing the
FIR in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction,
as the case involved extortion, forgery,
conspiracy,
fabrication
of
documents,
utilization of fabricated documents to
effectuate transfers of title before the
registering authorities and deprivation of
the complainant therein of his interest in
land on the basis of a fabricated power of
attorney, and consequently it was not in the
interest of the society to quash the FIR on
the ground that a settlement had been
arrived at with the complainant. Such
offences could not be construed to be
merely private or civil disputes but
implicated
the
societal
interest
in
prosecuting serious crime.

31. In "Social Action Forum For
Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union
of India and Others"8, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reiterated that a criminal
proceeding with respect to offence which is
non-compoundable can be quashed by the
High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C.
When settlements take place, then both the
parties can file a Petition under section 482
Cr.P.C and the High Court, considering
bona-fide of the Petition shall dispose of
the same, keeping in view the law laid
down in Gian Singh (Supra).

32. In "State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others"9, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, again held that the
power to quash the criminal proceedings in
exercise of power under Section 482 of the
Code 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. Paragraph
15 of Laxmi Narayan (Supra) is being
reproduced as under:-

 "15. 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:-
 15.1) 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;
 15.2) 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;
 15.3) Similarly, such power is not
to be exercised for the offences under the
special
statutes
like
Prevention
of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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;
 15.4) 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 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/delicate 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;
 15.5) While exercising the power
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable 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."

33. In Laxmi Narayan(Supra),
the High Court had quashed the criminal
proceedings for the offences under Section
307 and 34 IPC on the basis of settlement
mechanically
and
even
when
the
investigation was under process and some
how, the accused managed to enter into a
compromise with the complainant and
sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of
a settlement. It was held that the allegations
were serious in nature. Fire arms was used
in
the
commission
of
the
offence.
Considering the gravity of the offence and
the conduct of the accused his antecedents,
quashment of the FIR on the basis of
settlement was held as not sustainable in
the eye of law.

34. From the above discussion, it is
clear that the Court considering the nature
of offence and the fact that the parties have
amicably 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 482 Cr.P.C.
even if the offences are non-compoundable.
The 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
3 All. Taufik Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
143
not tinker with or paralyze the very object
of the administration of criminal justice
system.

35. It has further held that criminal
proceedings
involving
non-heinous
offences or where the offences are
predominantly of a private nature, can be
quashed. The cases where compromise has
taken place, this Court under inherent
power 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.

36. This Court is of the opinion
that 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 line
constricting the power of the Court to do
substantial
justice.
A
restrictive
construction of inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 has been observed
by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder
Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).

37. 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
between
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.

38. It is profitable to reproduce a
passage from Shimbhu vs. State of
Haryana10, wherein a three-Judge Bench
has held that a compromise entered into
between the parties cannot be construed as
a
leading
factor
based
on
which
proceedings can be quashed. It has further
been held that rape is a non-compoundable
offence and it is an offence against the
society and is not a matter to be left for the
parties to compromise and settle. Since the
Court cannot always be assured that the
consent
given
by
the
victim
in
compromising the case is a genuine
consent, there is every chance that she
might have been pressurized by the
convicts or the trauma undergone by her all
the years might have compelled her to opt
for a compromise.

39. In a case of rape or attempt of
rape, the conception of compromise under
no circumstances can really be thought of.
These are crimes against the body of a
woman which is her own temple. These are
offences which suffocate the breath of life
and sully the reputation. And reputation,
needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel
one can conceive in life. No one would
allow it to be extinguished. When a human
frame is defiled, the "purest treasure", is
lost.